Allen Jeremias1, Akiko Maehara2, Philippe Généreux3, Kaleab N Asrress4, Colin Berry5, Bernard De Bruyne6, Justin E Davies7, Javier Escaned8, William F Fearon9, K Lance Gould10, Nils P Johnson10, Ajay J Kirtane2, Bon-Kwon Koo11, Koen M Marques12, Sukhjinder Nijjer7, Keith G Oldroyd5, Ricardo Petraco7, Jan J Piek13, Nico H Pijls14, Simon Redwood4, Maria Siebes13, Jos A E Spaan13, Marcel van 't Veer14, Gary S Mintz2, Gregg W Stone2. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, New York; Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York. Electronic address: allen.jeremias@stonybrook.edu. 2. Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York; Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 3. Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York; Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; Department of Medicine, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 4. Cardiovascular Division, British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, King's College London, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 5. West of Scotland Regional Heart and Lung Centre, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom. 6. Cardiovascular Center Aalst, OLV Clinic, Aalst, Belgium. 7. International Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. 8. Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain. 9. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California. 10. Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing and Reversing Atherosclerosis, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Medical School and Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas. 11. Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 12. Department of Cardiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 13. Departments of Cardiology and Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 14. Department of Cardiology, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the diagnostic accuracy of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and resting distal coronary artery pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) with respect to hyperemic fractional flow reserve (FFR) in a core laboratory-based multicenter collaborative study. BACKGROUND: FFR is an index of the severity of coronary stenosis that has been clinically validated in 3 prospective randomized trials. iFR and Pd/Pa are nonhyperemic pressure-derived indices of the severity of stenosis with discordant reports regarding their accuracy with respect to FFR. METHODS: iFR, resting Pd/Pa, and FFR were measured in 1,768 patients from 15 clinical sites. An independent physiology core laboratory performed blinded off-line analysis of all raw data. The primary objectives were to determine specific iFR and Pd/Pa thresholds with ≥90% accuracy in predicting ischemic versus nonischemic FFR (on the basis of an FFR cut point of 0.80) and the proportion of patients falling beyond those thresholds. RESULTS: Of 1,974 submitted lesions, 381 (19.3%) were excluded because of suboptimal acquisition, leaving 1,593 for final analysis. On receiver-operating characteristic analysis, the optimal iFR cut point for FFR ≤0.80 was 0.90 (C statistic: 0.81 [95% confidence interval: 0.79 to 0.83]; overall accuracy: 80.4%) and for Pd/Pa was 0.92 (C statistic: 0.82 [95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 0.84]; overall accuracy: 81.5%), with no significant difference between these resting measures. iFR and Pd/Pa had ≥90% accuracy to predict a positive or negative FFR in 64.9% (62.6% to 67.3%) and 48.3% (45.6% to 50.5%) of lesions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive core laboratory analysis comparing iFR and Pd/Pa with FFR demonstrated an overall accuracy of ~80% for both nonhyperemic indices, which can be improved to ≥90% in a subset of lesions. Clinical outcome studies are required to determine whether the use of iFR or Pd/Pa might obviate the need for hyperemia in selected patients.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the diagnostic accuracy of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and resting distal coronary artery pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) with respect to hyperemic fractional flow reserve (FFR) in a core laboratory-based multicenter collaborative study. BACKGROUND: FFR is an index of the severity of coronary stenosis that has been clinically validated in 3 prospective randomized trials. iFR and Pd/Pa are nonhyperemic pressure-derived indices of the severity of stenosis with discordant reports regarding their accuracy with respect to FFR. METHODS: iFR, resting Pd/Pa, and FFR were measured in 1,768 patients from 15 clinical sites. An independent physiology core laboratory performed blinded off-line analysis of all raw data. The primary objectives were to determine specific iFR and Pd/Pa thresholds with ≥90% accuracy in predicting ischemic versus nonischemic FFR (on the basis of an FFR cut point of 0.80) and the proportion of patients falling beyond those thresholds. RESULTS: Of 1,974 submitted lesions, 381 (19.3%) were excluded because of suboptimal acquisition, leaving 1,593 for final analysis. On receiver-operating characteristic analysis, the optimal iFR cut point for FFR ≤0.80 was 0.90 (C statistic: 0.81 [95% confidence interval: 0.79 to 0.83]; overall accuracy: 80.4%) and for Pd/Pa was 0.92 (C statistic: 0.82 [95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 0.84]; overall accuracy: 81.5%), with no significant difference between these resting measures. iFR and Pd/Pa had ≥90% accuracy to predict a positive or negative FFR in 64.9% (62.6% to 67.3%) and 48.3% (45.6% to 50.5%) of lesions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive core laboratory analysis comparing iFR and Pd/Pa with FFR demonstrated an overall accuracy of ~80% for both nonhyperemic indices, which can be improved to ≥90% in a subset of lesions. Clinical outcome studies are required to determine whether the use of iFR or Pd/Pa might obviate the need for hyperemia in selected patients.
Authors: Felipe Díez-Delhoyo; Enrique Gutiérrez-Ibañes; Gerard Loughlin; Ricardo Sanz-Ruiz; María Eugenia Vázquez-Álvarez; Fernando Sarnago-Cebada; Rocío Angulo-Llanos; Ana Casado-Plasencia; Jaime Elízaga; Francisco Fernández Avilés Diáz Journal: World J Cardiol Date: 2015-09-26
Authors: Nils P Johnson; Wenguang Li; Xi Chen; Barry Hennigan; Stuart Watkins; Colin Berry; William F Fearon; Keith G Oldroyd Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Kathryn Dryer; Mark Gajjar; Nikhil Narang; Margaret Lee; Jonathan Paul; Atman P Shah; Sandeep Nathan; Javed Butler; Charles J Davidson; William F Fearon; Sanjiv J Shah; John E A Blair Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 4.733