OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare fractional flow reserve (FFR) with the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in patients with coronary artery disease and also to determine whether the iFR is independent of hyperemia. BACKGROUND: FFR is a validated index of coronary stenosis severity. FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves clinical outcomes compared to angiographic guidance alone. iFR has been proposed as a new index of stenosis severity that can be measured without adenosine. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, international study of 206 consecutive patients referred for PCI and a retrospective analysis of 500 archived pressure recordings. Aortic and distal coronary pressures were measured in duplicate in patients under resting conditions and during intravenous adenosine infusion at 140 μg/kg/min. RESULTS: Compared to the FFR cut-off value of ≤0.80, the diagnostic accuracy of the iFR value of ≤0.80 was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 53% to 67%) for all vessels studied and 51% (95% CI: 43% to 59%) for those patients with FFR in the range of 0.60 to 0.90. iFR was significantly influenced by the induction of hyperemia: mean ± SD iFR at rest was 0.82 ± 0.16 versus 0.64 ± 0.18 with hyperemia (p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics confirmed that the diagnostic accuracy of iFR was similar to resting Pd/Pa and trans-stenotic pressure gradient and significantly inferior to hyperemic iFR. Analysis of our retrospectively acquired dataset showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: iFR correlates weakly with FFR and is not independent of hyperemia. iFR cannot be recommended for clinical decision making in patients with coronary artery disease.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare fractional flow reserve (FFR) with the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in patients with coronary artery disease and also to determine whether the iFR is independent of hyperemia. BACKGROUND: FFR is a validated index of coronary stenosis severity. FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves clinical outcomes compared to angiographic guidance alone. iFR has been proposed as a new index of stenosis severity that can be measured without adenosine. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, international study of 206 consecutive patients referred for PCI and a retrospective analysis of 500 archived pressure recordings. Aortic and distal coronary pressures were measured in duplicate in patients under resting conditions and during intravenous adenosine infusion at 140 μg/kg/min. RESULTS: Compared to the FFR cut-off value of ≤0.80, the diagnostic accuracy of the iFR value of ≤0.80 was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 53% to 67%) for all vessels studied and 51% (95% CI: 43% to 59%) for those patients with FFR in the range of 0.60 to 0.90. iFR was significantly influenced by the induction of hyperemia: mean ± SD iFR at rest was 0.82 ± 0.16 versus 0.64 ± 0.18 with hyperemia (p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics confirmed that the diagnostic accuracy of iFR was similar to resting Pd/Pa and trans-stenotic pressure gradient and significantly inferior to hyperemic iFR. Analysis of our retrospectively acquired dataset showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: iFR correlates weakly with FFR and is not independent of hyperemia. iFR cannot be recommended for clinical decision making in patients with coronary artery disease.
Authors: Michele Pighi; Fabrizio Tomai; Alessandro Petrolini; Leonardo de Luca; Giuseppe Tarantini; Alberto Barioli; Paola Colombo; Silvio Klugmann; Marco Ferlini; Maurizio Ferrario Ormezzano; Bruno Loi; Paolo Calabrò; Renato Maria Bianchi; Giuseppe Faggian; Alberto Forni; Corrado Vassanelli; Marco Valgimigli; Flavio Ribichini Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Barry Hennigan; Nils Johnson; John McClure; David Corcoran; Stuart Watkins; Colin Berry; Keith G Oldroyd Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Catherine Pagiatakis; Jean-Claude Tardif; Philippe L L'Allier; Rosaire Mongrain Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2017-05-13 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Tim P van de Hoef; Martijn A van Lavieren; José P S Henriques; Jan J Piek; Bimmer E P M Claessen Journal: Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med Date: 2014-04
Authors: Tim P van de Hoef; Joo Myung Lee; Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Bon-Kwon Koo; Hitoshi Matsuo; Manesh R Patel; Justin E Davies; Javier Escaned; Jan J Piek Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: P Meimoun; J Clerc; D Ardourel; U Djou; S Martis; T Botoro; F Elmkies; H Zemir; A Luycx-Bore; J Boulanger Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 2.357