Search

Contains fulltext : 305503.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: The microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) is an innovative index to assess the vasodilatory capacity of the coronary circulation while accounting for the presence of concomitant epicardial disease. The MRR has shown to be a valuable diagnostic and prognostic tool in the general coronary artery disease (CAD) population. However, considering the fundamental aspects of its assessment and the unique hemodynamic characteristics of women, it is crucial to provide additional considerations for evaluating the MRR specifically in women. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic and prognostic applicability of the MRR in women and assess the potential differences across different sexes. METHODS: From the ILIAS Registry, we enrolled all patients with a stable indication for invasive coronary angiography, ensuring complete physiological and follow-up data. We analyzed the diagnostic value by comparing differences between sexes and evaluated the prognostic value of the MRR specifically in women, comparing it to that in men. RESULTS: A total of 1494 patients were included of which 26% were women. The correlation between MRR and CFR was good and similar between women (r = 0.80, p < 0.005) and men (r = 0.81, p < 0.005). The MRR was an independent and important predictor of MACE in both women (HR 0.67, 0.47-0.96, p = 0.027) and men (HR 0.84, 0.74-0.95, p = 0.007). The optimal cut-off value for MRR in women was 2.8 and 3.2 in men. An abnormal MRR similarly predicted MACE at 5-year follow-up in both women and men. CONCLUSION: The MRR seems to be equally applicable in both women and men with stable coronary artery disease.

Item does not contain fulltext, The prognostic value of abnormal resting Pd/Pa and coronary flow reserve (CFR) after fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularisation deferral according to sex remains unknown. From the ILIAS Registry composed of 20 hospitals globally from 7 countries, patients with deferred lesions following FFR assessment (FFR > 0.8) were included. (NCT04485234) The primary clinical endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2-years follow-up. We included 1392 patients with 1759 vessels (n = 564 women, 31.9%). Although resting Pd/Pa was similar between the sexes (p = 0.116), women had lower CFR than men (2.5 [2.0-3.2] vs. 2.7 [2.1-3.5]; p = 0.004). During a 2-year follow-up period, TVF events occurred in 56 vessels (3.2%). The risk of 2-year TVF was significantly higher in women with low versus high resting Pd/Pa (HR: 9.79; p < 0.001), whereas this trend was not seen in men. (Sex: P-value for interaction = 0.022) Furthermore, resting Pd/Pa provided an incremental prognostic value for 2-year TVF over CFR assessment only in women. After FFR-based revascularisation deferral, low resting Pd/Pa is associated with higher risk of TVF in women, but not in men. The predictive value of Pd/Pa increases when stratified according to CFR values, with significantly high TVF rates in women in whom both indices are concordantly abnormal.Clinical Trial Registration: Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes Registry (ILIAS Registry), NCT04485234.

Contains fulltext : 295995.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), AIMS: The microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) was introduced as a means to characterize the vasodilator reserve capacity of the coronary microcirculation while accounting for the influence of concomitant epicardial disease and the impact of administration of potent vasodilators on aortic pressure. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic performance of MRR. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1481 patients with stable symptoms and a clinical indication for coronary angiography were included from the global ILIAS Registry. MRR was derived as a function of the coronary flow reserve (CFR) divided by the fractional flow reserve (FFR) and corrected for driving pressure. The median MRR was 2.97 [Q1-Q3: 2.32-3.86] and the overall relationship between MRR and CFR was good [correlation coefficient (Rs) = 0.88, P < 0.005]. The difference between CFR and MRR increased with decreasing FFR [coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.34; Coef.-2.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.05--2.73; P < 0.005]. MRR was independently associated with major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 5-year follow-up [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78; 95% CI 0.63-0.95; P = 0.024] and with target vessel failure (TVF) at 5-year follow-up (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76-0.97; P = 0.047). The optimal cut-off value of MRR was 3.0. Based on this cut-off value, only abnormal MRR was significantly associated with MACE and TVF at 5-year follow-up in vessels with functionally significant epicardial disease (FFR <0.75). CONCLUSION: MRR seems a robust indicator of the microvascular vasodilator reserve capacity. Moreover, in line with its theoretical background, this study suggests a diagnostic advantage of MRR over other indices of vasodilatory capacity in patients with hemodynamically significant epicardial coronary artery disease.

Contains fulltext : 300155.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The management of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) is informed by studies predominantly including men. This study investigated the relationship between patients sex and different endotypes of CCS, including sex-specific clinical outcomes. METHODS: In patients with CCS undergoing coronary angiography, invasive Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) and Coronary Flow Reserve (CFR) were measured. Patients were stratified into groups: 1) obstructive coronary artery disease (oCAD) (FFR≤0.80, no revascularization), 2) undergoing revascularization, 3) non-obstructive coronary artery disease with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) (FFR>0.80, CFR≤2.5), and 4) non-obstructive coronary artery disease without CMD (FFR>0.80 and CFR>2.5). RESULTS: 1836 patients (2335 vessels) were included, comprising 1359 (74.0%) men and 477 (26.0%) women. oCAD was present in 14.1% and was significantly less prevalent in women than in men (10.3% vs 15.5%, respectively p < 0.01). Revascularization was present in 30.9% and was similarly prevalent in women and men (28.2% vs. 31.9%, respectively p = 0.13). CMD was present in 24.2% and was significantly more prevalent in women than men (28.6% vs 22.6%, respectively p < 0.01). Normal invasive measurements were found in 564 patients (33.0% women vs 30.0% men, p = 0.23). Male sex was associated with an increased risk of target vessel failure compared to women (HR.1.89, 95% CI 1.12-3.18, p = 0.018), regardless of CCS-endotype. CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences exist in the prevalence and outcomes of different endotypes of CCS in symptomatic patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography. In particular, oCAD (and subsequent revascularization) were more prevalent in men. Conversely, CMD was more prevalent in women. Overall, men experienced a worse cardiovascular outcome compared to women, independent of any specific CCS endotype., 01 november 2023

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate comparative prognosis between deferred versus performed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to coronary flow reserve (CFR) values of patients with intermediate fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND: For coronary stenosis with intermediate FFR, the prognostic value of PCI remains controversial. The prognostic impact of PCI may be different according to CFR in patients with intermediate FFR. METHODS: From the ILIAS Registry (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes Registry, N = 2,322), 400 patients (412 vessels) with intermediate FFR (0.75-0.80) were selected. Patients were stratified into preserved CFR (>2.0, n = 253) and depressed CFR (≤2.0, n = 147) cohorts. Per-vessel clinical outcomes during 5 years of follow-up were compared between deferred versus performed PCI groups in both cohorts. The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Among the study population, PCI was deferred for 210 patients (219 vessels, 53.2%) (deferred group) and performed for 190 patients (193 vessels, 46.8%) (performed group). The risk of TVF was comparable between the deferred and performed groups (12.8% vs 14.2%; adjusted HR: 1.403; 95% CI: 0.584-3.369; P = 0.448). When stratified by CFR, PCI was performed in 39.1% (100/261 vessels) of the preserved CFR cohort and 61.9% (93/151 vessels) of the depressed CFR cohort. Within the preserved CFR cohort, the risk of TVF did not differ significantly between the deferred and performed groups (11.0% vs 13.9%; adjusted HR: 0.770; 95% CI: 0.262-2.266; P = 0.635). However, in the depressed CFR cohort, the deferred group had a significantly higher risk of TVF than the performed group (17.2% vs 14.2%; adjusted HR: 4.932; 95% CI: 1.312-18.53; P = 0.018). A significant interaction was observed between CFR and the treatment decision (interaction P = 0.049

Item does not contain fulltext, Background In the absence of obstructive coronary stenoses, abnormality of noninvasive stress tests (NIT) in patients with chronic coronary syndromes may indicate myocardial ischemia of nonobstructive coronary arteries (INOCA). The differential prognosis of INOCA according to the presence of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) and incremental prognostic value of CMD with intracoronary physiologic assessment on top of NIT information remains unknown. Methods and Results From the international multicenter registry of intracoronary physiologic assessment (ILIAS [Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes] registry, N=2322), stable patients with NIT and nonobstructive coronary stenoses with fractional flow reserve >0.80 were selected. INOCA was diagnosed when patients showed positive NIT results. CMD was defined as coronary flow reserve ≤2.5. According to the presence of INOCA and CMD, patients were classified into 4 groups: group 1 (no INOCA nor CMD, n=116); group 2 (only CMD, n=90); group 3 (only INOCA, n=41); and group 4 (both INOCA and CMD, n=40). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of all-cause death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization at 5 years. Among 287 patients with nonobstructive coronary stenoses (fractional flow reserve=0.91±0.06), 81 patients (38.2%) were diagnosed with INOCA based on positive NIT. By intracoronary physiologic assessment, 130 patients (45.3%) had CMD. Regardless of the presence of INOCA, patients with CMD showed a significantly lower coronary flow reserve and higher hyperemic microvascular resistance compared with patients without CMD (P<0.001 for all). The cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at 5 years were 7.4%, 21.3%, 7.7%, and 34.4% in groups 1 to 4. By documenting CMD (groups 2 and 4), intracoronary physiologic assessment identified patients at a significantly higher risk of major adverse cardio

Contains fulltext : 283522.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Background Intracoronary physiologic indexes such as coronary flow reserve (CFR) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have been regarded as prognostic indicators in patients with coronary artery disease. The current study evaluated the association between intracoronary physiologic indexes and LVEF and their differential prognostic implications in patients with coronary artery disease. Methods and Results A total of 1889 patients with 2492 vessels with available CFR and LVEF were selected from an international multicenter prospective registry. Baseline physiologic indexes were measured by thermodilution or Doppler methods and LVEF was recorded at the index procedure. The primary outcome was target vessel failure, which was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization over 5 years of follow-up. Patients with reduced LVEF <50% (162 patients [8.6%], 202 vessels [8.1%]) showed a similar degree of epicardial coronary artery disease but lower CFR values than those with preserved LVEF (2.4±1.2 versus 2.7±1.2, P<0.001), mainly driven by the increased resting coronary flow. Conversely, hyperemic coronary flow, fractional flow reserve, and the degree of microvascular dysfunction were similar between the 2 groups. Reduced CFR (≤2.0) was seen in 613 patients (32.5%) with 771 vessels (30.9%). Reduced CFR was an independent predictor for target vessel failure (hazard ratio, 2.081 [95% CI, 1.385-3.126], P<0.001), regardless of LVEF. Conclusions CFR was lower in patients with reduced LVEF because of increased resting coronary flow. Patients with reduced CFR showed a significantly higher risk of target vessel failure than did those with preserved CFR, regardless of LVEF. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04485234.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the clinical implications of combined assessment of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR). BACKGROUND: Combined assessment of FFR and CFR allows detailed characterization of pathophysiology in chronic coronary syndromes. Data on the clinical implications of distinct FFR and CFR patterns are limited, leading to uncertainty regarding their relevance. METHODS: Patients with chronic coronary syndromes and obstructive coronary artery disease were selected from the multicenter ILIAS (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes) registry. Patients were classified into 4 groups on the basis of FFR ≤0.80 and CFR <2.0. The endpoint was the 5-year target vessel failure (TVF) rate. RESULTS: A total of 2,143 patients with 2,725 lesions were included. Compared with normal FFR/normal CFR, low FFR/low CFR carried the highest risk for TVF (HR: 5.4; 95% CI: 3.2-9.3; P < 0.001), significantly higher than in revascularized vessels (P = 0.007). Discordance, with either low FFR/normal CFR or normal FFR/low CFR, was associated with increased TVF rates compared with normal FFR/normal CFR (low FFR/normal CFR: HR: 3.5 [95% CI: 2.2-5.4; P < 0.001]; normal FFR/low CFR: HR: 3.0 [95% CI: 1.9-4.7; P < 0.001]). No difference in 5-year TVF was observed between the 2 discordant groups (P = 0.57) or between the discordant groups and the revascularized group (P = 0.26 vs low FFR/normal CFR; P = 0.60 vs normal FFR/low CFR). CONCLUSIONS: Impaired coronary hemodynamics are uniformly associated with increased 5-year TVF rates. Nonrevascularized vessels with discordant FFR and CFR are associated with 5-year event rates that are equivalent to those of vessels that undergo revascularization, whereas vessels with combined low FFR and CFR exhibit event rates that are significantly higher than after revascularization. (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes Registry [ILIAS Registry]; NCT0448

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate sex differences in procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)- and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategies. BACKGROUND: An iFR-guided strategy has shown a lower revascularization rate than an FFR-guided strategy, without differences in clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate stenosis to guide Revascularization) study, in which 601 women and 1,891 men were randomized to iFR- or FFR-guided strategy. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. RESULTS: Among the entire population, women had a lower number of functionally significant lesions per patient (0.31 +/- 0.51 vs. 0.43 +/- 0.59; p < 0.001) and less frequently underwent revascularization than men (42.1% vs. 53.1%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in mean iFR value according to sex (0.91 +/- 0.09 vs. 0.91 +/- 0.10; p = 0.442). However, the mean FFR value was lower in men than in women (0.83 +/- 0.09 vs. 0.85 +/- 0.10; p = 0.001). In men, an FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than an iFR-guided strategy (57.1% vs. 49.3%; p = 0.001), but this difference was not observed in women (41.4% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.757). There was no difference in MACE rates between iFR- and FFR-guided strategies in both women (5.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.50 to 2.43; p = 0.805) and men (6.6% vs. 7.0%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.46; p = 0.919). CONCLUSIONS: An FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than iFR-guided strategy in men, but not in women. However, iFR- and FFR-guided strategies showed comparable clinical outcomes, regardless of sex. (Functional Lesion Assessment of Inter

Contains fulltext : 209410.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), 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.

Contains fulltext : 196266.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND: Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS: The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used t

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTS: At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P=0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE-FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, N