Baseline instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) showed a stronger correlation with coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) than fractional flow reserve (FFR), with ρ=0.68 vs ρ=0.50 (P<0.001).
Does baseline instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) provide an improved pressure-only estimation of underlying coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) compared to fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with coronary artery disease?
186 patients (216 stenoses) with coronary artery disease scheduled for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention. Mean age 61±11, 75% male. Multinational (The Netherlands, United Kingdom). Exclusion criteria: significant valvular pathology and prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) measurement at baseline (vasodilator-free pressure-only index)
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement during hyperemia (induced by intravenous or intracoronary adenosine)
Diagnostic relationship and classification agreement between pressure-only indices (iFR and FFR) and coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR), assessed by correlation coefficient and area under the receiver operating characteristic curvesurrogate
iFR correlates more strongly with underlying coronary flow velocity reserve than FFR, providing physiological validation for iFR as a vasodilator-free index of coronary disease severity.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
Background— Coronary flow reserve has extensive validation as a prognostic marker in coronary disease. Although pressure-only fractional flow reserve (FFR) improves outcomes compared with angiography when guiding percutaneous coronary intervention, it disagrees with coronary flow reserve classification 30% of the time. We evaluated whether baseline instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) could provide an improved pressure-only estimation of underlying coronary flow reserve. Methods and Results— Invasive pressure and flow velocity were measured in 216 stenoses from 186 patients with coronary disease. The diagnostic relationship between pressure-only indices (iFR and FFR) and coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) was compared using correlation coefficient and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. iFR showed a stronger correlation with underlying CFVR (iFR–CFVR, ρ=0.68 versus FFR–CFVR, ρ=0.50; P 0.75; mean FFR flow, 42.3±22.8 cm/s versus mean iFR flow, 26.1±15.5 cm/s; P <0.001). Conclusions— When compared with FFR, iFR shows stronger correlation and better agreement with CFVR. These results provide physiological evidence that iFR could potentially be used as a functional index of disease severity, independently from its agreement with FFR.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Ricardo Petraco
Interventional Cardiology
Tim P. van de Hoef
Interventional Cardiology
Sukhjinder Nijjer
Interventional Cardiology
Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions
University of Amsterdam
Amphia Ziekenhuis
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Petraco et al. (Wed,) reported a other. Baseline instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) showed a stronger correlation with coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) than fractional flow reserve (FFR), with ρ=0.68 vs ρ=0.50 (P<0.001).
synapsesocial.com/papers/6970ddc7da50910f9664e711 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.113.000926
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: