Search

BACKGROUND: Patient-related and lesion-related factors may influence instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)/fractional flow reserve (FFR) concordance, potentially affecting the safety of revascularization deferral. METHODS: Consecutive patients with at least an intermediate coronary stenosis evaluated by both iFR and FFR were retrospectively enrolled. The agreement between iFR and FFR at their diagnostic cut-offs (FFR 0.80, iFR 0.89) was assessed. Predictors of discordance were assessed using multivariate analyses. Tailored iFR cut-offs according to predictors of discordance best matching an FFR of 0.80 were identified. The impact of reclassification according to tailored iFR cut-offs on major cardiovascular events (MACE: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or target-lesion revascularization) among deferred lesions was investigated. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-nine intermediate coronary stenosis [FFR 0.84 (0.78-0.89), iFR 0.91 (0.87-0.95), 202 left main/left anterior descending (LM/LAD) vessels, 67.6%] of 260 patients were studied. Discordance rate was 23.4% (n = 70, 10.7% iFR-negative discordant, 12.7% iFR-positive discordant). Predictors of discordance were LM/LAD disease, multivessel disease, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, smoking, reduced eGFR and hypertension. Lesion reclassification with tailored iFR cut-offs based on patient-level predictors carried no prognostic value among deferred lesions. Reclassification according to lesion location, which was entirely driven by LM/LAD lesions (iFR cut-offs: 0.93 for LM/LAD, 0.89 for non-LM/LAD), identified increased MACE among lesions deferred based on a negative FFR, between patients with a positive as compared with a negative iFR (19.4 vs. 6.1%, P = 0.044), whereas the same association was not observed with the conventional 0.89 iFR cut-off (15 vs. 8.6%, P = 0.303). CONCLUSION: Tailored vessel-based iFR cut-offs carry prognostic value among FFR-negative lesions, suggesting that a one-size-fit-all iFR

Background: The PARIS risk score (PARIS-rs) and percutaneous coronary intervention complexity (PCI-c) predict clinical and procedural residual ischemic risk following PCI. Their accuracy in patients undergoing unprotected left main (ULM) or bifurcation PCI has not been assessed. Methods: The predictive performances of the PARIS-rs (categorized as low, intermediate, and high) and PCI-c (according to guideline-endorsed criteria) were evaluated in 3,002 patients undergoing ULM/bifurcation PCI with very thin strut stents. Results: After 16 (12–22) months, increasing PARIS-rs (8.8% vs. 14.1% vs. 27.4%, p <.001) and PCI-c (15.2% vs. 11%, p =.025) were associated with higher rates of major adverse cardiac events ([MACE], a composite of death, myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization), driven by MI/death for PARIS-rs and target lesion revascularization/stent thrombosis for PCI-c (area under the curves for MACE: PARIS-rs 0.60 vs. PCI-c 0.52, p-for-difference <.001). PCI-c accuracy for MACE was higher in low-clinical-risk patients; while PARIS-rs was more accurate in low-procedural-risk patients. ≥12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was associated with a lower MACE rate in high PARIS-rs patients, (adjusted-hazard ratio 0.42 [95% CI: 0.22–0.83], p =.012), with no benefit in low to intermediate PARIS-rs patients. No incremental benefit with longer DAPT was observed in complex PCI. Conclusions: In the setting of ULM/bifurcation PCI, the residual ischemic risk is better predicted by a clinical risk estimator than by PCI complexity, which rather appears to reflect stent/procedure-related events. Careful procedural risk estimation is warranted in patients at low clinical risk, where PCI complexity may substantially contribute to the overall residual ischemic risk.

Background: There are limited data regarding the impact of final kissing balloon (FKI) in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention using ultrathin stents in left main or bifurcations. Methods: All patients undergoing left main or bifurcations percutaneous coronary intervention enrolled in the RAIN registry (Very Thin Stents for Patients With MAIN or BiF in Real Life: The RAIN, a Multicenter Study) evaluating ultrathin stents were included. Major adverse cardiac event (a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis) was the primary end point, while its components, along with target vessel revascularization, were the secondary end points. The main analysis was performed comparing patients with and without FKI after adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Subgroup analyses were performed according to FKI (short [<3 mm] versus long overlap), strategy (provisional versus 2-stent), routine versus bail-out FKI, and the use of imaging and proximal optimization technique. Results: Two thousand seven hundred forty-two patients were included. At 16 months (8-20) follow-up, inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted rates of major adverse cardiac event were similar between FKI and no-FKI group (15.1% versus 15.5%; P=0.967), this result did not change with use of imaging, proximal optimization technique, or routine versus bail-out FKI. In the 2-stent subgroup, FKI was associated with lower rates of target vessel revascularization (7.8% versus 15.9%; P=0.030) and target lesion revascularization (7.3% versus 15.2%; P=0.032). Short overlap FKI was associated with a lower rate of target lesion revascularization compared with no FKI (2.6% versus 5.4%; P=0.034), while long overlap was not (6.8% versus 5.4%; P=0.567). Conclusions: In patients with bifurcations or unprotected left main treated with ultrathin stents, short overlap FKI is associated with less restenosis. In a 2-st