Instantaneous Wave‐free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI

Background The instantaneous wave‐free ratio (iFR) is an index used to assess the severity of coronary‐artery stenosis. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been found to have similar diagnostic accuracy. However, studies of clinical outcomes associated with the use of iFR are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse cardiac events. Methods We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open‐label clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2037 participants with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of coronary‐artery stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR. The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure. Results A primary end‐point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) in the iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], ‐1.5 to 2.8; P=0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58; P=0.53); the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points. The results were similar among major subgroups. The rates of myocardial infarction, target‐lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfort during the procedure. Conclusions Among patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR‐guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR‐guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. (Funded by Philips Volcano; iFR SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02166736.)

[1]  A. Kesselheim,et al.  Ensuring Access to Injectable Generic Drugs - The Case of Intravesical BCG for Bladder Cancer. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  A. Jeremias,et al.  Use of the Instantaneous Wave‐free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  M. Bikkina,et al.  Intracoronary adenosine-induced ventricular arrhythmias during fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement: case series and literature review , 2017, Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics.

[4]  J. Hartikainen,et al.  Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial , 2016, The Lancet.

[5]  P. Jüni,et al.  A Prospective Natural History Study of Coronary Atherosclerosis Using Fractional Flow Reserve. , 2016, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  S. Pocock,et al.  Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Head-to-head comparison of basal stenosis resistance index, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and fractional flow reserve: diagnostic accuracy for stenosis-specific myocardial ischaemia. , 2015, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[8]  David Erlinge,et al.  Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve guided intervention (iFR-SWEDEHEART): Rationale and design of a multicenter, prospective, registry-based randomized clinical trial. , 2015, American heart journal.

[9]  Helmut Baumgartner,et al.  2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous , 2014, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[10]  A. Hughes,et al.  Baseline Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio as a Pressure-Only Estimation of Underlying Coronary Flow Reserve: Results of the JUSTIFY-CFR Study (Joined Coronary Pressure and Flow Analysis to Determine Diagnostic Characteristics of Basal and Hyperemic Indices of Functional Lesion Severity–Coronary Flow Re , 2014, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[11]  H. Bøtker,et al.  Differential clinical outcomes after 1 year versus 5 years in a randomised comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (the SORT OUT III study): a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial , 2014, The Lancet.

[12]  A. Jeremias,et al.  Multicenter core laboratory comparison of the instantaneous wave-free ratio and resting Pd/Pa with fractional flow reserve: the RESOLVE study. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  B. Dimitrov,et al.  Does Routine Pressure Wire Assessment Influence Management Strategy at Coronary Angiography for Diagnosis of Chest Pain?: The RIPCORD Study , 2014, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[14]  Ole Fröbert,et al.  Thrombus aspiration during myocardial infarction. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  Volkmar Falk,et al.  2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Ca , 2014, European heart journal.

[16]  J. Davies,et al.  Instantaneous wave-free ratio: numerically different, but diagnostically superior to FFR? Is lower always better? , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  K. Park,et al.  Safety and efficacy of a novel hyperaemic agent, intracoronary nicorandil, for invasive physiological assessments in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. , 2013, European heart journal.

[18]  A. Hughes,et al.  Classification performance of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve in a clinical population of intermediate coronary stenoses: results of the ADVISE registry. , 2013, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[19]  A. Hughes,et al.  Diagnostic classification of the instantaneous wave-free ratio is equivalent to fractional flow reserve and is not improved with adenosine administration. Results of CLARIFY (Classification Accuracy of Pressure-Only Ratios Against Indices Using Flow Study). , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[20]  C. Terkelsen,et al.  Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial , 2013, The Lancet.

[21]  Anand Prasad,et al.  Contemporary patterns of fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound use among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[22]  Nikola Jagic,et al.  Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  A. Hughes,et al.  Development and validation of a new adenosine-independent index of stenosis severity from coronary wave-intensity analysis: results of the ADVISE (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation) study. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[24]  G. Levine,et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[25]  Uwe Siebert,et al.  Clinical ResearchInterventional CardiologyFractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: 2-Year Follow-Up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) Study , 2010 .

[26]  Bernard J. Gersh,et al.  Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , 2010 .

[27]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  William Wijns,et al.  Fractional Flow Reserve to Determine the Appropriateness of Angioplasty in Moderate Coronary Stenosis: A Randomized Trial , 2001, Circulation.

[29]  P. H. van der Voort,et al.  Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[30]  J. Bartunek,et al.  Relation between myocardial fractional flow reserve calculated from coronary pressure measurements and exercise-induced myocardial ischemia. , 1995, Circulation.

[31]  M. Gardner,et al.  Statistics in Medicine: Calculating confidence intervals for survival time analyses , 1988 .

[32]  D Machin,et al.  Calculating confidence intervals for survival time analyses. , 1988, British medical journal.