BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are useful in determining indications for revascularization of coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the discordance of FFR and iFR was noted in approximately 20%, this cause has not been well established. We investigated patient background and features on coronary CT angiography (CCTA) showing not only FFR- and iFR-positive findings but also discordance between FFR ≤ 0.8 and iFR ≤ 0.89. METHODS: Subjects were consecutively treated in 83 cases with 105 vessels in which stenosis of 30-90% was detected at one vessel of at least 2 mm or more in the major epicardial vessels and FFR and iFR was performed within subsequent 90 days, among suspected CAD which underwent CCTA. The factors affecting not only FFR- and iFR-positive findings, respectively, but also discordance between FFR and iFR was evaluated using logistic regression analysis on per-patient and per-vessel basis. RESULTS: FFR- and iFR-positive findings were observed in 42 vessels (40.0%) and 34 vessels (32.3%), respectively. Discordance between FFR ≤ 0.8 and iFR ≤ 0.89 was observed in 22 vessels (21.0%) of 21 patients. In multivariate logistic analysis, LAD (OR 3.55; 95%CI 1.20-11.71; p = 0.0217) and lumen volume/myocardial weight (L/M) ratio (OR 0.93; 0.86-0.99, p = 0.0290) were significant predictors for FFR-positive findings. For iFR-positive findings, LAD (OR 3.86; 95%CI 1.12-13.31; p = 0.0236) was only significant predictor. In FFR ≤ 0.8 and iFR > 0.89 group (15 vessels, 14.3%), positive remodeling (PR) (OR 5.03, 95%CI 1.23-20.48, p = 0.0205) was significant predictor. In FFR > 0.8 and iFR ≤ 0.89 group (7 vessels, 6.7%), there were no significant predictors. CONCLUSION: On CCTA characteristics, a relevant predictor for FFR-positive findings included low L/M ratio. PR was significant predictor in FFR-positive, iFR-negative patients among those with discordance between the FFR and iFR.
BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are useful in determining indications for revascularization of coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the discordance of FFR and iFR was noted in approximately 20%, this cause has not been well established. We investigated patient background and features on coronary CT angiography (CCTA) showing not only FFR- and iFR-positive findings but also discordance between FFR ≤ 0.8 and iFR ≤ 0.89. METHODS: Subjects were consecutively treated in 83 cases with 105 vessels in which stenosis of 30-90% was detected at one vessel of at least 2 mm or more in the major epicardial vessels and FFR and iFR was performed within subsequent 90 days, among suspected CAD which underwent CCTA. The factors affecting not only FFR- and iFR-positive findings, respectively, but also discordance between FFR and iFR was evaluated using logistic regression analysis on per-patient and per-vessel basis. RESULTS: FFR- and iFR-positive findings were observed in 42 vessels (40.0%) and 34 vessels (32.3%), respectively. Discordance between FFR ≤ 0.8 and iFR ≤ 0.89 was observed in 22 vessels (21.0%) of 21 patients. In multivariate logistic analysis, LAD (OR 3.55; 95%CI 1.20-11.71; p = 0.0217) and lumen volume/myocardial weight (L/M) ratio (OR 0.93; 0.86-0.99, p = 0.0290) were significant predictors for FFR-positive findings. For iFR-positive findings, LAD (OR 3.86; 95%CI 1.12-13.31; p = 0.0236) was only significant predictor. In FFR ≤ 0.8 and iFR > 0.89 group (15 vessels, 14.3%), positive remodeling (PR) (OR 5.03, 95%CI 1.23-20.48, p = 0.0205) was significant predictor. In FFR > 0.8 and iFR ≤ 0.89 group (7 vessels, 6.7%), there were no significant predictors. CONCLUSION: On CCTA characteristics, a relevant predictor for FFR-positive findings included low L/M ratio. PR was significant predictor in FFR-positive, iFR-negative patients among those with discordance between the FFR and iFR.