Predictive factors of discordance between the instantaneous wave‐free ratio and fractional flow reserve
- 31 January 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
- Vol. 94 (3), 356-363
- https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28116
Abstract
Objectives To identify clinical, angiographic and hemodynamic predictors of discordance between instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR). Background The iFR was found to be non-inferior to the gold-standard FFR for guiding coronary revascularization, although it is discordant with FFR in 20% of cases. A better understanding of the causes of discordance may enhance application of these indices. Methods Both FFR and iFR were measured in the prospective multicenter CONTRAST study. Clinical, angiographic and hemodynamic variables were compared between patients with concordant values of FFR and iFR (cutoff ≤0.80 and ≤0.89, respectively). Results Out of the 587 patients included, in 466 patients (79.4%) FFR and iFR agreed: both negative, n = 244 (41.6%), or positive, n = 222 (37.8%). Compared with FFR, iFR was negative discordant (FFR+/iFR-) in 69 (11.8%) patients and positive discordant (FFR-/iFR+) in 52 (8.9%) patients. On multivariate regression, stenosis location (left main or proximal left anterior descending) (OR: 3.30[1.68;6.47]), more severe stenosis (OR: 1.77[1.35;2.30]), younger age (OR: 0.93[0.90;0.97]), and slower heart rate (OR: 0.59[0.42;0.75]) were predictors of a negative discordant iFR. Absence of a beta-blocker (OR: 0.41[0.22;0.78]), older age (OR: 1.04[1.00;1.07]), and less severe stenosis (OR: 0.69[0.53;0.89]) were predictors of a positive discordant iFR. Conclusions During iFR acquisition, stenosis location, stenosis degree, heart rate, age and use of beta blockers influence concordance with FFR and should be taken into account when interpreting iFR.Keywords
Funding Information
- Fédération Française de Cardiologie
- AstraZeneca
- Cardiovascular Research Foundation
- Medtronic
- Boston Scientific Corporation
- Abbott Vascular (NCT02184117)
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Influence of Lesion Location on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Adenosine-Free Coronary Pressure Wire MeasurementsJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2016
- Continuum of Vasodilator Stress From Rest to Contrast Medium to Adenosine Hyperemia for Fractional Flow Reserve AssessmentКАРДИОЛОГИЯ УЗБЕКИСТАНА, 2016
- Quantification of the Effect of Pressure Wire Drift on the Diagnostic Performance of Fractional Flow Reserve, Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio, and Whole-Cycle Pd/PaCirculation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2016
- Deferral vs. performance of percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally non-significant coronary stenosis: 15-year follow-up of the DEFER trialEuropean Heart Journal, 2015
- The impact of age on fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: A FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) trial substudyInternational Journal of Cardiology, 2014
- 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularizationEuropean Heart Journal, 2014
- Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI versus Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- The impact of aging and atherosclerotic risk factors on transthoracic coronary flow reserve in subjects with normal coronary angiographyCardiovascular Ultrasound, 2012
- Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary InterventionNew England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Simultaneous Coronary Pressure and Flow Velocity Measurements in HumansCirculation, 1996