BACKGROUND: There has been a gradual upward creep of revascularization thresholds for both fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), before the clinical outcome trials for both indices. The increase in revascularization that has potentially resulted is at odds with increasing evidence questioning the benefits of revascularizing stable coronary disease. Using an independent invasive reference standard, this study primarily aimed to define optimal thresholds for FFR and iFR and also aimed to compare the performance of iFR, FFR, and resting distal coronary pressure (Pd)/central aortic pressure (Pa). METHODS AND RESULTS: Pd and Pa were measured in 75 patients undergoing coronary angiography±percutaneous coronary intervention with resting Pd/Pa, iFR, and FFR calculated. Doppler average peak flow velocity was simultaneously measured and hyperemic stenosis resistance calculated as hyperemic stenosis resistance=Pa-Pd/average peak flow velocity (using hyperemic stenosis resistance >0.80 mm Hg/cm per second as invasive reference standard). An FFR threshold of 0.75 had an optimum diagnostic accuracy (84%), whereas for iFR this was 0.86 (76%). At these thresholds, the discordance in classification between indices was 11%. The accuracy of contemporary thresholds (FFR, 0.80; iFR, 0.89) was significantly lower (78.7% and 65.3%, respectively) with a 25% rate of discordance. The optimal threshold for Pd/Pa was 0.88 (77.3% accuracy). When comparing indices at optimal thresholds, FFR showed the best diagnostic performance (area under the curve, 0.91 FFR versus 0.79 iFR and 0.77 Pd/Pa, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary thresholds provide suboptimal diagnostic accuracy compared with an FFR threshold of 0.75 and iFR threshold of 0.86 (cutoffs in derivation studies). Whether more rigorous thresholds would result in selecting populations gaining greater symptom and prognostic benefit needs assessing in future trials of physiology-guided revascularization.
BACKGROUND: There has been a gradual upward creep of revascularization thresholds for both fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), before the clinical outcome trials for both indices. The increase in revascularization that has potentially resulted is at odds with increasing evidence questioning the benefits of revascularizing stable coronary disease. Using an independent invasive reference standard, this study primarily aimed to define optimal thresholds for FFR and iFR and also aimed to compare the performance of iFR, FFR, and resting distal coronary pressure (Pd)/central aortic pressure (Pa). METHODS AND RESULTS:Pd and Pa were measured in 75 patients undergoing coronary angiography±percutaneous coronary intervention with resting Pd/Pa, iFR, and FFR calculated. Doppler average peak flow velocity was simultaneously measured and hyperemic stenosis resistance calculated as hyperemic stenosis resistance=Pa-Pd/average peak flow velocity (using hyperemic stenosis resistance >0.80 mm Hg/cm per second as invasive reference standard). An FFR threshold of 0.75 had an optimum diagnostic accuracy (84%), whereas for iFR this was 0.86 (76%). At these thresholds, the discordance in classification between indices was 11%. The accuracy of contemporary thresholds (FFR, 0.80; iFR, 0.89) was significantly lower (78.7% and 65.3%, respectively) with a 25% rate of discordance. The optimal threshold for Pd/Pa was 0.88 (77.3% accuracy). When comparing indices at optimal thresholds, FFR showed the best diagnostic performance (area under the curve, 0.91 FFR versus 0.79 iFR and 0.77 Pd/Pa, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary thresholds provide suboptimal diagnostic accuracy compared with an FFR threshold of 0.75 and iFR threshold of 0.86 (cutoffs in derivation studies). Whether more rigorous thresholds would result in selecting populations gaining greater symptom and prognostic benefit needs assessing in future trials of physiology-guided revascularization.
Authors: Nils P Johnson; Gábor G Tóth; Dejian Lai; Hongjian Zhu; Göksel Açar; Pierfrancesco Agostoni; Yolande Appelman; Fatih Arslan; Emanuele Barbato; Shao-Liang Chen; Luigi Di Serafino; Antonio J Domínguez-Franco; Patrick Dupouy; Ali M Esen; Ozlem B Esen; Michalis Hamilos; Kohichiro Iwasaki; Lisette O Jensen; Manuel F Jiménez-Navarro; Demosthenes G Katritsis; Sinan A Kocaman; Bon-Kwon Koo; Ramón López-Palop; Jeffrey D Lorin; Louis H Miller; Olivier Muller; Chang-Wook Nam; Niels Oud; Etienne Puymirat; Johannes Rieber; Gilles Rioufol; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Steven P Sedlis; Yasuchika Takeishi; Pim A L Tonino; Eric Van Belle; Edoardo Verna; Gerald S Werner; William F Fearon; Nico H J Pijls; Bernard De Bruyne; K Lance Gould Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Javier Escaned; Mauro Echavarría-Pinto; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Tim P van de Hoef; Ton de Vries; Prashant Kaul; Ganesh Raveendran; John D Altman; Howard I Kurz; Johannes Brechtken; Mark Tulli; Clemens Von Birgelen; Joel E Schneider; Ahmed A Khashaba; Allen Jeremias; Jim Baucum; Raul Moreno; Martijn Meuwissen; Gregory Mishkel; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Howard Levite; Ramon Lopez-Palop; Marc Mayhew; Patrick W Serruys; Habib Samady; Jan J Piek; Amir Lerman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Nils P Johnson; Daniel T Johnson; Richard L Kirkeeide; Colin Berry; Bernard De Bruyne; William F Fearon; Keith G Oldroyd; Nico H J Pijls; K Lance Gould Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Pim A L Tonino; Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Uwe Siebert; Fumiaki Ikeno; Marcel van' t Veer; Volker Klauss; Ganesh Manoharan; Thomas Engstrøm; Keith G Oldroyd; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A MacCarthy; William F Fearon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Martijn Meuwissen; Maria Siebes; Steven A J Chamuleau; Berthe L F van Eck-Smit; Karel T Koch; Robbert J de Winter; Jan G P Tijssen; Jos A E Spaan; Jan J Piek Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-07-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Daniel S Berman; David J Maron; G B John Mancini; Sean W Hayes; Pamela M Hartigan; William S Weintraub; Robert A O'Rourke; Marcin Dada; John A Spertus; Bernard R Chaitman; John Friedman; Piotr Slomka; Gary V Heller; Guido Germano; Gilbert Gosselin; Peter Berger; William J Kostuk; Ronald G Schwartz; Merill Knudtson; Emir Veledar; Eric R Bates; Benjamin McCallister; Koon K Teo; William E Boden Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sayan Sen; Kaleab N Asrress; Sukhjinder Nijjer; Ricardo Petraco; Iqbal S Malik; Rodney A Foale; Ghada W Mikhail; Nicolas Foin; Christopher Broyd; Nearchos Hadjiloizou; Amarjit Sethi; Mahmud Al-Bustami; David Hackett; Masood A Khan; Muhammed Z Khawaja; Christopher S Baker; Michael Bellamy; Kim H Parker; Alun D Hughes; Darrel P Francis; Jamil Mayet; Carlo Di Mario; Javier Escaned; Simon Redwood; Justin E Davies Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Valérie E Stegehuis; Gilbert W M Wijntjens; Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Guus A de Waard; Tim P van de Hoef; Sayan Sen; Ricardo Petraco; Mauro Echavarría-Pinto; Martijn Meuwissen; Ibrahim Danad; Paul Knaapen; Javier Escaned; Justin E Davies; Niels van Royen; Jan J Piek Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Ozan M Demir; Haseeb Rahman; Tim P van de Hoef; Javier Escaned; Jan J Piek; Sven Plein; Divaka Perera Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 29.983