EuroPCR 2023 | iFR vs FFR Guided Revascularization in Left Main De Novo Lesions

Acute coronary syndrome guidelines recommend the use of iFR and FFR guided invasive management for patients with high risk ischemia regardless medical treatment. However, iFR and FFR they are often considered exchangeable. 

Prior literature has shown there can be a discrepancy of around 20% between these techniques when it comes to revascularization outcomes.  Choosing the adequate measurement has allowed better decision making and improved safety when deferring an intervention in relevant territories such as the left main. (DEFINE-LM registry). 

The aim of this study was to look into the differences between iFR and FFR guided revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome and left main disease. 

The DEFINE-LM registry data were looked at: the study included 275 patients with left main disease measured with iFR and FFR, 153 whose intervention was deferred and 122 undergoing revascularization. Primary end point was MACE prediction including MACE incidence and comparison between iFR and FFR guided revascularization outcomes through ROC curves.

Mean age was 66, 86% were men, syntax score was 21.4. Stenosis severity in deferred patients was 41.8% (average iFR 0.91 and FFR 0.82) and 49.5% in treated patients (iFR 0.85 and FFR 0.71). 

Read also: EuroPCR 2023 | KISS: Provisional Stenting in Bifurcations.

Clinical outcomes at 35 months showed no statistically significant differences (HR 0.71, CI 95%0.38-1.92, P=0.28). There was a discrepancy between measurements in 21.1% of cases. Also, though there was MACE prediction when deferring with both measurements (iFR AUC: 0.74 and FFR AUC: 0.62) the iFR guided strategy was safer, while MACE in revascularization presented low predictability.

Dr. Omar Tupayachi

Dr. Omar Tupayachi.
Member of the Editorial Board of SOLACI.org.

Reference: Presented by Takayuki Warisawa en Late Breaking Trials Sessions, EuroPCR 2023, May 16, 2023, París, France. 


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

More articles by this author

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

Patients at High Risk of Bleeding After Coronary Angioplasty: Are Risk Assessment Tools ARC-HBR and PRECISE-DAPT Useful?

Patients undergoing coronary stenting typically receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 6 to 12 months, consisting of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and aspirin. While DAPT...

ACC 2025 | WARRIOR: Ischemia in Women with Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Approximately half of all women with symptomatic ischemia who undergo coronary angiography are found to have non-obstructive coronary artery disease ((ischemia and non-obstructive coronary...

ACC 2025 | FLAVOUR II: Angiography-Derived FFR-Guided vs. IVUS-Guided PCI

Physiological assessment is effective when it comes to decision-making for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, despite the available evidence, its use remains limited. AngioFFR...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

RACE Trial: Effect of Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty and Riociguat on Right Ventricular Afterload and Function in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension

Even though pulmonary endarterectomy is the treatment of choice for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), up to 40% of patients are not candidates because...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

TAVR in Small Annuli: What Valve Should We Use?

One of the major challenges of severe aortic stenosis are patients with small aortic annuli, defined as ≤430 mm² aortic valve area. This condition...