Key result
iFR-guided deferral of LAD lesions resulted in a significantly lower rate of MACE at 1 year compared to FFR-guided deferral (2.44% vs. 5.26%; adjusted HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22-0.95; p=0.04).
Why the study?
Physicians are often uncomfortable deferring revascularization of LAD stenosis due to perceived high risk of MACE, leaving the safety of FFR- or iFR-guided LAD deferral unclear.
Does iFR-guided deferral reduce MACE at 1 year compared to FFR-guided deferral in patients with LAD lesions?
RCT (n=872)
Double-blind
Does iFR-guided deferral reduce MACE at 1 year compared to FFR-guided deferral in patients with LAD lesions?
Hazard Ratio: 0.46 (95% CI 0.22–0.95)
Absolute Event Rate: 2.44% vs 5.26%
p-value: p=0.04
Deferral of LAD revascularization based on iFR is safe and associated with lower 1-year MACE rates compared to FFR-guided deferral, driven primarily by fewer unplanned revascularizations.
Supports iFR over FFR for LAD deferral decisions; extends RCT evidence on vessel-specific physiologic guidance.
BACKGROUND: Physicians are not always comfortable deferring treatment of a stenosis in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery because of the perception that there is a high risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The authors describe, using the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) trial, MACE rates when LAD lesions are deferred, guided by physiological assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to establish the safety of deferring treatment in the LAD using FFR or iFR within the DEFINE-FLAIR trial. METHODS: MACE rates at 1 year were compared between groups (iFR and FFR) in patients whose physiological assessment led to LAD lesions being deferred. MACE was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization at 1 year. Patients, and staff performing follow-up, were blinded to whether the decision was made with FFR or iFR. Outcomes were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 872 patients had lesions deferred in the LAD (421 guided by FFR, 451 guided by iFR). The event rate with iFR was significantly lower than with FFR (2.44% vs. 5.26%; adjusted HR: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.95; p = 0.04). This was driven by significantly lower unplanned revascularization with iFR and numerically lower MI (unplanned revascularization: 2.22% iFR vs. 4.99% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.03; MI: 0.44% iFR vs. 2.14% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.07; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: iFR-guided deferral appears to be safe for patients with LAD lesions. Patients in whom iFR-guided deferral was performed had statistically significantly lower event rates than those with FFR-guided deferral.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sen et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Intermediate stenosis in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery (n=872). iFR-guided deferral vs. FFR-guided deferral was evaluated on Composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization at 1 year (adjusted HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.95, p=0.04). iFR-guided deferral of LAD lesions resulted in a significantly lower rate of MACE at 1 year compared to FFR-guided deferral (2.44% vs. 5.26%; adjusted HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22-0.95; p=0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: