Physiological Pattern of Disease Assessed by Pressure-Wire Pullback Has an Influence on Fractional Flow Reserve/Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Discordance.
coronary artery disease
fractional flow reserve, myocardial
hemodynamics
humans
registries
Journal
Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions
ISSN: 1941-7632
Titre abrégé: Circ Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101499602
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
entrez:
16
5
2019
pubmed:
16
5
2019
medline:
12
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) disagree on the hemodynamic significance of a coronary lesion in ≈20% of cases. It is unknown whether the physiological pattern of disease is an influencing factor for this. This study assessed whether the physiological pattern of coronary artery disease influences discordance between FFR and iFR measurement. Three-hundred and sixty intermediate coronary lesions (345 patients; mean age, 64.4±10.3 years; 76% men) with combined FFR, iFR, and iFR pressure-wire pullback were included for analysis from an international multicenter registry. Cut points for hemodynamic significance were FFR ≤0.80 and iFR ≤0.89, respectively. Lesions were classified into FFR+/iFR+ (n=154; 42.7%), FFR-/iFR+ (n=38; 10.6%), FFR+/iFR- (n=41; 11.4%), and FFR-/iFR- (n=127; 35.3%) groups. The physiological pattern of disease was classified according to the iFR pullback recordings as predominantly physiologically focal (n=171; 47.5%) or predominantly physiologically diffuse (n=189; 52.5%). Median FFR and iFR were 0.80 (interquartile range, 0.75-0.85) and 0.89 (interquartile range, 0.86-0.92), respectively. FFR disagreed with iFR in 22% (79 of 360). The physiological pattern of disease was the only influencing factor relating to FFR/iFR discordance: predominantly physiologically focal was significantly associated with FFR+/iFR- (58.5% [24 of 41]), and predominantly physiologically diffuse was significantly associated with FFR-/iFR+ (81.6% [31 of 38]; P<0.001 for pattern of disease between FFR+/iFR- and FFR-/iFR+ groups). The physiological pattern of coronary artery disease was an important influencing factor for FFR/iFR discordance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) disagree on the hemodynamic significance of a coronary lesion in ≈20% of cases. It is unknown whether the physiological pattern of disease is an influencing factor for this. This study assessed whether the physiological pattern of coronary artery disease influences discordance between FFR and iFR measurement.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Three-hundred and sixty intermediate coronary lesions (345 patients; mean age, 64.4±10.3 years; 76% men) with combined FFR, iFR, and iFR pressure-wire pullback were included for analysis from an international multicenter registry. Cut points for hemodynamic significance were FFR ≤0.80 and iFR ≤0.89, respectively. Lesions were classified into FFR+/iFR+ (n=154; 42.7%), FFR-/iFR+ (n=38; 10.6%), FFR+/iFR- (n=41; 11.4%), and FFR-/iFR- (n=127; 35.3%) groups. The physiological pattern of disease was classified according to the iFR pullback recordings as predominantly physiologically focal (n=171; 47.5%) or predominantly physiologically diffuse (n=189; 52.5%). Median FFR and iFR were 0.80 (interquartile range, 0.75-0.85) and 0.89 (interquartile range, 0.86-0.92), respectively. FFR disagreed with iFR in 22% (79 of 360). The physiological pattern of disease was the only influencing factor relating to FFR/iFR discordance: predominantly physiologically focal was significantly associated with FFR+/iFR- (58.5% [24 of 41]), and predominantly physiologically diffuse was significantly associated with FFR-/iFR+ (81.6% [31 of 38]; P<0.001 for pattern of disease between FFR+/iFR- and FFR-/iFR+ groups).
CONCLUSIONS
The physiological pattern of coronary artery disease was an important influencing factor for FFR/iFR discordance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31084237
doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007494
pmc: PMC6553990
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e007494Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G1100443
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Apr 8;63(13):1253-1261
pubmed: 24211503
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Oct 16;7(20):e010279
pubmed: 30371265
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2018 Apr - May;19(3 Pt B):362-372
pubmed: 29429843
Eur Heart J. 2018 May 7;39(18):1610-1619
pubmed: 29529177
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jan 7;40(2):87-165
pubmed: 30165437
Circ J. 2018 Nov 24;82(12):3044-3051
pubmed: 30318503
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Oct 21;64(16):1641-54
pubmed: 25323250
EuroIntervention. 2016 Dec 20;12(12):1473-1480
pubmed: 27998839
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Oct 15;245:63-68
pubmed: 28789845
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Apr 10;59(15):1392-402
pubmed: 22154731
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Dec 12;9(23):2390-2399
pubmed: 27838269
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Nov;9(11):
pubmed: 27834663
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Dec 26;10(24):2514-2524
pubmed: 29268881
EuroIntervention. 2009 May;5(1):50-6
pubmed: 19577983
Am Heart J. 2016 Dec;182:119-124
pubmed: 27914491
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Apr;9(4):e002988
pubmed: 27076571
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Nov 1;222:16-21
pubmed: 27448699
Circulation. 1993 Apr;87(4):1354-67
pubmed: 8462157
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2018 Aug;71(8):656-667
pubmed: 29551700