Is the Use of iFR for the Deferral of Left Main Coronary Artery Lesions Safe?

Deferral of left main coronary artery lesions using instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) seems to be safe. At the least, patients with deferred lesions had similar long-term prognosis to that of patients who underwent revascularization based on that same indicator.

¿Es seguro utilizar iFR para diferir lesiones del tronco de la coronaria izquierda?

Left main coronary artery lesions were universally excluded from studies including medical treatment among the therapeutic alternatives.

As a consequence of Yusuf’s work published in The Lancet in 1994 and the CASS Registry published in Circulation the following year, there are almost no new studies randomizing left main coronary artery lesions >50% to medical treatment. Both works showed that the mortality rate for patients randomized to medical treatment was twice as high as for patients who underwent surgery.

A 50% visual assessment required more precision: its underestimation doubles mortality at 5 years and its overestimation entails a trip to the OR for a patient who does not need surgery.

This is when coronary intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) emerged as arbiter and the LITRO study (J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:351-8) divided the waters more clearly with a minimal luminal area of 6 mm2.


Read also: Optimal Intervention Timing for NSTEMI with No Antiaggregant Pre-Treatment.


This criterion divided patients for many years. However, new questions emerged. For starters, 6 mm2 is an absolute number; consequently, a small left main coronary artery with a mild lesion might meet the revascularization criterion, while a large-diameter left main coronary artery with a clearly severe lesion could still have a 6-mm2 minimal luminal area.

This work proposes a new arbiter: iFR.

This multicenter observational study included 314 patients with left main coronary artery lesions, among whom 163 (51.9%) were deferred and 151 (48.1%) were revascularized based on an iFR cutoff of 0.89.


Read also: Multiple vs. Culprit vessel MI in Cardiogenic Shock: Anything New?


The primary endpoint was a composite of death, non-fatal infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization. The secondary endpoints were each individual component of the primary endpoint and also cardiac death.

After 30 months of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 9.2% of deferred patients and in 14.6% of revascularized patients (p = 0.26). There were no significant differences in the individual components either: 3.7% vs. 4.6% for all-cause death; 1.2% vs. 2% for cardiac death; 2.5% vs. 5.3% for non-fatal infarction; 4.3% vs. 5.3% for target-lesion revascularization.

Conclusion

Deferring left main coronary artery lesions based on iFR seems safe, and deferred and revascularized patients appear to have a similar long-term prognosis.

 

Original Title: Safety of Revascularization Deferral of Left Main Stenosis Based on Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Evaluation.

Reference: Takayuki Warisawa et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2020, article in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2020.02.035


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

ACC 2025 | FAME 3: FFR Guided PCI vs CABG 5 Year Outcomes.

Earlier studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) have shown fewer events at long term for the surgical strategy.  However,...

CRABBIS Trial: Comparison of Different Provisional Stenting Sequences

Provisional stenting (PS) is the gold standard for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in most patients with coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL). Moreover, recent studies such...

Andromeda Trial: Meta-Analysis of Drug Coated Balloon vs. DES in Small Vessel DeNovo Lesions

The use of coronary stents vs plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), has allowed to reduce recoil and limiting flow dissection which were major limitation...

QFR vs. FFR: Is Coronary Revascularization Deferral Safe? Results from a FAVOR III Sub-Analysis

In cases of intermediate coronary lesions, functional assessment is recommended to aid the decision-making process regarding revascularization. There are several tools currently used to...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

ACC 2025 | FAME 3: FFR Guided PCI vs CABG 5 Year Outcomes.

Earlier studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) have shown fewer events at long term for the surgical strategy.  However,...

ACC 2025 | API-CAT: Reduced vs. Full Dose Extended Anticoagulation in Patients with Cancer Related VTE

The risk of cancer related recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) will drop over time, while bleeding risk will persist. At present, it is recommended we...

STRIDE: Semaglutide in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease and Type II Diabetes

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a severe complication in patients with type II diabetes, primarily affecting peripheral vessels, especially below-the-knee (BTK) arteries. This condition...