iFR has been validated as a useful tool for intermediate lesion analysis, with the advantage of not requiring the use of drugs. On the other hand, its use for PCI outcome assessment has not yet been thoroughly looked into, even though there have been promising data. 24% of DEFINE PCI cases presented ≤0.89 iFR with...
Chronic stable angina has shown a good response to medical treatment, and the Ischemia study has recently demonstrated the safety of such treatment in stable chronic angina with moderate to severe ischemia. However, this study excluded left main coronary artery (LMCA) lesions. The FAME Study has shown the safety and efficacy of fractional flow reserve...
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...
To evaluate borderline coronary lesions (a 40% to 70% obstruction), determining associated ischemia is paramount. For this purpose, pressure gradients are measured across the stenosis. These measurements can be hyperemic, such as the fractional flow reserve (FFR), or taken at rest, such as the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). According to the iFR-SWEDEHEART 5-year follow-up outcomes,...
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) proved to be very useful and safe in the FAME study, but its trade-off was using adenosine (which has a short half-life) and adverse reactions, which fortunately were rare. Subsequently, two large studies—the iFR-SWEDEHEART and DEFINE-FLAIR—demonstrated that instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) offered comparable results to FFR in the short term, avoiding...
The 5-year followup of the iFR-SWEDEHEART has confirmed the safety and efficacy of using either FFR or iFR to guide PCI in intermediate lesions. The iFR-SWEDEHEART initial outcomes together with the DEFINE-FLAIR outcomes had started the debate around these two measuring strategies. The FFR requires adenosine, which results costly in addition to causing adverse events,...
No decision on the coronary tree has more impact than left main intervention. This makes interventionists prone to over and underestimation of angiographic imaging. In other words, in real life we never report on angiograms showing moderate left main lesions. This reality should be looked into, since operating or intervening moderate left main lesions on...
Invasive functional measurement of intermediate lesions has become the gold standard to define revascularization. Due to its favorable long-term prognostic value, fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the reference used to compare all others. Recently, new nonhyperemic indexes, measured in a specific diastolic period, have emerged. Among them, the one with the most accumulated evidence is...
Symptomatic patients undergoing PCI with no residual ischemia confirmed by iFR have superior symptom improvement at one year vs. patients who did not receive the optimization. In addition to symptoms, patients receiving iFR optimization (final value ≥ 0.95) presented lower cardiac mortality, spontaneous MI or clinically justified revascularization vs. patients with <0.95 final value. ...
Age may impact results when making an angioplasty choice based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) vs. instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). After 2 years of follow-up, patients whose treatment of intermediate lesions was deferred based on functional testing had similar outcomes regardless of whether this decision was informed by FFR or iFR. However, iFR performance was constant,...