Impact of Routine Invasive Physiology at Time of Angiography in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease on Reclassi fi cation of Revascularization Strategy

OBJECTIVES This study sought to prospectively assess the impact of routine invasive physiology at the time of angiography on reclassi fi cation of therapeutic management of multivessel disease (MVD) patients, and to assess how implementation of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) alters the process. BACKGROUND Routine invasive physiology in intermediate coronary lesions at the time of diagnostic angiography, primarily in patients with single-vessel disease and using fractional fl ow reserve (FFR), reclassi fi es coronary revascularization management in 26% to 44% of patients. The role of invasive physiology in patients with MVD is unclear. METHODS In 18 centers, 484 patients undergoing diagnostic angiography disclosing MVD with lesions > 40% by visual assessment were included. Investigators were asked to prospectively de fi ne their initial management strategy based on angiography and clinical information. Invasive physiology (FFR or iFR driven) was then performed and fi nal strategy de fi ned. Initial and fi nal vessel, patient, procedural, and overall management were described. Reclassi fi cation was de fi ned as the difference between initial and fi nal strategy. RESULTS The majority of patients were clinically stable (82.2%). Two- and 3-vessel disease was present in 73.3%

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

[2]  E. Omerovic,et al.  Instantaneous Wave‐free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  M. Costa,et al.  Impact of Routine Fractional Flow Reserve Evaluation During Coronary Angiography on Management Strategy and Clinical Outcome: One-Year Results of the POST-IT Multicenter Registry , 2016, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[4]  G. Rioufol,et al.  Routine Fractional Flow Reserve Combined to Diagnostic Coronary Angiography as a One-Stop Procedure: Episode 3. , 2016, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[5]  A. Jeremias,et al.  Prospective Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio to Assess Coronary Stenosis Relevance: Results of ADVISE II International, Multicenter Study (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II). , 2015, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[6]  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.

[7]  G. Rioufol,et al.  Routine pressure wire assessment at time of diagnostic angiography: is it ready for prime time? , 2014, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[8]  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.

[9]  G. Rioufol,et al.  Outcome Impact of Coronary Revascularization Strategy Reclassification With Fractional Flow Reserve at Time of Diagnostic Angiography: Insights From a Large French Multicenter Fractional Flow Reserve Registry , 2014, Circulation.

[10]  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.

[11]  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.

[12]  J. Messenger,et al.  A contemporary view of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: a report from the CathPCI Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, 2010 through June 2011. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

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

[14]  P. Damman,et al.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Combined Intracoronary Pressure and Flow Velocity Information During Baseline Conditions: Adenosine-Free Assessment of Functional Coronary Lesion Severity , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[15]  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.

[16]  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 .

[17]  Sanjay Kaul,et al.  Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  Grace A Lin,et al.  Frequency of stress testing to document ischemia prior to elective percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2008, JAMA.

[19]  K. Mahaffey,et al.  ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation , 2012 .

[20]  Baris Gencer,et al.  ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation , 2011 .