Rohit Maini1, John Moscona2, Paul Katigbak2, Camilo Fernandez3, Gursukhmandeep Sidhu4, Qusai Saleh2, Anand Irimpen2, Rohan Samson2, Thierry LeJemtel2. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Tulane University, 1430 Tulane Avenue SL 48, New Orleans, LA 70112, United States. Electronic address: rmaini@tulane.edu. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Tulane University, 1430 Tulane Avenue SL 48, New Orleans, LA 70112, United States. 3. Division of Precision Medicine, HeartGEN Institute, Boston, MA, United States. 4. The Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education, Scranton, PA 18503, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains underutilized due to practical concerns related to the need for hyperemic agents. These concerns have prompted the study of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), a vasodilator-free index of coronary stenosis. Non-inferior cardiovascular outcomes have been demonstrated in two recent randomized clinic trials. We performed this meta-analysis to provide a necessary update of the diagnostic accuracy of iFR referenced to FFR based on the addition of eight more recent studies and 3727 more lesions. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Central, ProQuest, and Web of Science databases for full text articles published through May 31, 2017 to identify studies addressing the diagnostic accuracy of iFR referenced to FFR≤0.80. The following keywords were used: "instantaneous wave-free ratio" OR "iFR" AND "fractional flow reserve" OR "FFR." RESULTS: In total, 16 studies comprising 5756 lesions were identified. Pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates of iFR versus FFR≤0.80 were: sensitivity, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.76-0.79); specificity, 0.83 (0.81-0.84); positive likelihood ratio, 4.54 (3.85-5.35); negative likelihood ratio, 0.28 (0.24-0.32); diagnostic odds ratio, 17.38 (14.16-21.34); area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.87; and an overall diagnostic accuracy of 0.81 (0.78-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, iFR showed excellent agreement with FFR as a resting index of coronary stenosis severity without the undesired effects and cost of hyperemic agents. When considering along with its clinical outcome data and ease of application, the diagnostic accuracy of iFR supports its use as a suitable alternative to FFR for physiology-guided revascularization of moderate coronary stenoses. SUMMARY: We performed a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of iFR referenced to FFR. iFR showed excellent agreement with FFR as a resting index of coronary stenosis severity without the undesired effects and cost of hyperemic agents. This supports its use as a suitable alternative to FFR for physiology-guided revascularization of moderate coronary stenoses.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains underutilized due to practical concerns related to the need for hyperemic agents. These concerns have prompted the study of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), a vasodilator-free index of coronary stenosis. Non-inferior cardiovascular outcomes have been demonstrated in two recent randomized clinic trials. We performed this meta-analysis to provide a necessary update of the diagnostic accuracy of iFR referenced to FFR based on the addition of eight more recent studies and 3727 more lesions. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Central, ProQuest, and Web of Science databases for full text articles published through May 31, 2017 to identify studies addressing the diagnostic accuracy of iFR referenced to FFR≤0.80. The following keywords were used: "instantaneous wave-free ratio" OR "iFR" AND "fractional flow reserve" OR "FFR." RESULTS: In total, 16 studies comprising 5756 lesions were identified. Pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates of iFR versus FFR≤0.80 were: sensitivity, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.76-0.79); specificity, 0.83 (0.81-0.84); positive likelihood ratio, 4.54 (3.85-5.35); negative likelihood ratio, 0.28 (0.24-0.32); diagnostic odds ratio, 17.38 (14.16-21.34); area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.87; and an overall diagnostic accuracy of 0.81 (0.78-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, iFR showed excellent agreement with FFR as a resting index of coronary stenosis severity without the undesired effects and cost of hyperemic agents. When considering along with its clinical outcome data and ease of application, the diagnostic accuracy of iFR supports its use as a suitable alternative to FFR for physiology-guided revascularization of moderate coronary stenoses. SUMMARY: We performed a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of iFR referenced to FFR. iFR showed excellent agreement with FFR as a resting index of coronary stenosis severity without the undesired effects and cost of hyperemic agents. This supports its use as a suitable alternative to FFR for physiology-guided revascularization of moderate coronary stenoses.