Discordance Between FFR and iFR. Which Measurement Is More Important?

In the next days, Dr. Seung Hun and colleagues will publish in J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2019 a study that answers the title question and also brings peace of mind about the decisions we make based on one of these measurements or the other.

La performance diagnóstica del iFR hace temblar al FFR

This study assessed the physiologic characteristics of discordant lesions between instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR), and their impact on the prognosis at 5 years.

Both iFR and FFR are standard methods for the assessment of the functional significance of coronary artery lesions. However, there is a lack of literature regarding how to manage cases in which the results for these measurements do not match, and regarding the clinical impact of making decisions based on one method over the other.

Researchers evaluated a total of 840 vessels from 596 patients classified in groups according to iFR and FFR: high iFR–high FFR (n = 580), low iFR–high FFR (n = 40), high iFR–low FFR (n = 69), and low iFR–low FFR (n = 128). These patients were compared with a control group.


Read also: Meta-Analysis of Large TAVR Studies on Low-Risk: Evidence is Consistent.


Differences were measured and observed through other methods, such as coronary flow reserve (CFR), index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), and resistance reserve ratio (RRR), reflecting the vasodilatory capacity of coronary microcirculation.

The follow-up period was 5 years, and researchers registered all-cause death, any infarction, and any revascularization, comparing revascularized patients with those who were deferred.

In the low iFR–high FFR group, all other measurements (CFR, RRR, and IMR) were similar to those of the low iFR–low FFR group. In the high iFR–low FFR group, the other parameters were similar to those of the control group.

Among the 4 groups, when classified by iFR and FFR, CFR and RRR are significantly different, unlike IMR.



Read also: 1000 MitraClips: Results from the World’s Most Experienced Site.


Such discordance between iFR and FFR did not affect the clinical endpoints.

Significant differences in the endpoints were present only upon comparison between the low iFR–low FFR and the high iFR–high FFR groups (p = 0.018).

Conclusion

There were differences in coronary function, especially in the vasodilatory capacity, between patients with iFR and FFR discordance. However, such discordance did not impact clinical results at 5 years.

Original title: Physiologic Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Discordance Between FFR and iFR.

Reference: Seung Hun Lee et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2019, article in press.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

TCT 2024 | FAVOR III EUROPA

The study FAVOR III EUROPA, a randomized trial, included 2,000 patients with chronic coronary syndrome, or stabilized acute coronary syndrome, and intermediate lesions. 1,008...

TCT 2024 – ECLIPSE: Randomized Study of Orbital Atherectomy vs Conventional PCI in Severely Calcified Lesions

Coronary calcification is associated with stent under-expansion and increased risk of both early and late adverse events. Atherectomy is an essential tool for uncrossable...

TCT 2024 | Use of Drug-Coated Balloons for Side Branch Treatment in Provisional Stenting

In some cases, treating coronary bifurcations with provisional stenting requires side branch stenting, which may lead to suboptimal outcomes. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have emerged...

TCT 2024 | Use of Artificial Intelligence for Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease

The current approach to chest pain mainly focuses on symptom characteristics, conducting functional tests for ischemia assessment. However, several randomized clinical trials have shown...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

TCT 2024 | FAVOR III EUROPA

The study FAVOR III EUROPA, a randomized trial, included 2,000 patients with chronic coronary syndrome, or stabilized acute coronary syndrome, and intermediate lesions. 1,008...

TCT 2024 | TRISCEND II

This randomized study included 400 patients; 267 were treated with EVOQUE valve and 133 with optimal medical treatment (OMT). After one-year follow-up, there were no...

TCT 2024 – ACCESS-TAVI: Comparing Percutaneous Access Closure Strategies After TAVI

Vascular access complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain common. However, few studies compare vascular access closure methods.  Based on the CHOICE-CLOSURE and MASH...