Literature DB >> 28317438

Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI.

Matthias Götberg1, Evald H Christiansen1, Ingibjörg J Gudmundsdottir1, Lennart Sandhall1, Mikael Danielewicz1, Lars Jakobsen1, Sven-Erik Olsson1, Patrik Öhagen1, Hans Olsson1, Elmir Omerovic1, Fredrik Calais1, Pontus Lindroos1, Michael Maeng1, Tim Tödt1, Dimitrios Venetsanos1, Stefan K James1, Amra Kåregren1, Margareta Nilsson1, Jörg Carlsson1, Dario Hauer1, Jens Jensen1, Ann-Charlotte Karlsson1, Georgios Panayi1, David Erlinge1, Ole Fröbert1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is an index used to assess the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been found to have similar diagnostic accuracy. However, studies of clinical outcomes associated with the use of iFR are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse cardiac events.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2037 participants with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of coronary-artery stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR. The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure.
RESULTS: A primary end-point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) in the iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 2.8; P=0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58; P=0.53); the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points. The results were similar among major subgroups. The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfort during the procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. (Funded by Philips Volcano; iFR SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02166736 .).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28317438     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1616540

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  157 in total

Review 1.  The Role of Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Measurements in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Authors:  Abdul Rahman Ihdayhid; Jin-Sin Koh; John Ramzy; Arnav Kumar; Michael Michail; Adam Brown; Habib Samady
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2019-11-25       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 2.  Consensus document for invasive coronary physiologic assessment in Asia-Pacific countries.

Authors:  Hak Seung Lee; Joo Myung Lee; Chang-Wook Nam; Eun-Seok Shin; Joon-Hyung Doh; Neng Dai; Martin K C Ng; Andy S C Yong; Damras Tresukosol; Ajit S Mullasari; Rony Mathew; Praveen Chandra; Kuang-Te Wang; Yundai Chen; Jiyan Chen; Kai-Hang Yiu; Nils P Johnson; Bon-Kwon Koo
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 2.737

Review 3.  Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Stenosis: Current Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Sercan Okutucu; Mehmet Cilingiroglu; Marc D Feldman
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 2.931

4.  Revisiting the Optimal Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Thresholds for Predicting the Physiological Significance of Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Bhavik N Modi; Haseeb Rahman; Thomas Kaier; Matthew Ryan; Rupert Williams; Natalia Briceno; Howard Ellis; Antonis Pavlidis; Simon Redwood; Brian Clapp; Divaka Perera
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 6.546

5.  Diastolic pressure ratio: new approach and validation vs. the instantaneous wave-free ratio.

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

6.  A simplified formula to calculate fractional flow reserve in sequential lesions circumventing the measurement of coronary wedge pressure: The APIS-S pilot study.

Authors:  Juan Luis Gutiérrez-Chico; Carlos Cortés; Miłosz Jaguszewski; Michele Schincariol; Ignacio J Amat-Santos; Juan A Franco-Peláez; Grzegorz Żuk; Dariusz Ciećwierz; Wojciech Wojakowski; Felipe Navarro; Shengxian Tu; Borja Ibáñez
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 2.737

7.  Imaging of coronary flow capacity: is there a role for dynamic CT perfusion imaging?

Authors:  Alexia Rossi; Giuseppe Ferrante
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Independent predictors of discordance between the resting full-cycle ratio and fractional flow reserve.

Authors:  Reiji Goto; Hiroaki Takashima; Hirofumi Ohashi; Hirohiko Ando; Akihiro Suzuki; Shinichiro Sakurai; Yusuke Nakano; Hiroaki Sawada; Masanobu Fujimoto; Yasushi Suzuki; Katsuhisa Waseda; Wataru Ohashi; Tetsuya Amano
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2021-01-05       Impact factor: 2.037

9.  Interventional cardiology: Adenosine-free assessment of stenosis severity.

Authors:  Gregory B Lim
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 10.  Coronary Angiography With Pressure Wire and Fractional Flow Reserve.

Authors:  Luise Gaede; Helge Möllmann; Tanja Rudolph; Johannes Rieber; Florian Boenner; Monique Tröbs
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 5.594

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.