Search

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary heart team (HT) evaluation is recommended for patients with severe primary mitral regurgitation to optimize treatment decisions. However, its impact on patient outcomes remains unknown. We evaluated the impact of implementing mitral HT on patient survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with new diagnoses of severe primary mitral regurgitation in a large healthcare network echocardiogram database between 2016 and 2020. We compared the incidence of multidisciplinary evaluation by structural cardiology and cardiac surgery services and 2-year survival before and after mitral HT implementation. The 1:1 propensity-score matching between pre- and post-mitral HT used Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality for mitral repair, age, sex, race, heart failure symptoms, inpatient setting, history of MI, and dementia as covariates. Logistic regression identified variables associated with the likelihood of undergoing multidisciplinary evaluation. Among 70 510 echocardiograms performed, 391 patients had severe primary mitral regurgitation (median age, 77 years; 46% women). Multidisciplinary evaluation increased from 29% to 89% (P

BACKGROUND: Despite the initial evidence supporting the utility of intravascular imaging to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), adoption remains low. Recent new trial data have become available. An updated study-level meta-analysis comparing intravascular imaging to angiography to guide PCI was performed. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, and all-cause death. Mixed-effects meta-regression was performed to investigate the impact of complex PCI on the primary outcomes. A total of 16 trials with 7814 patients were included. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 28.8 months. Intravascular imaging led to a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (relative risk [RR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55-0.82]; P

Background Complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly performed in older adults (age ≥75 years) with stable ischemic heart disease. However, little is known about clinical outcomes. Methods and Results We derived a cohort of older adults undergoing elective PCI for stable ischemic heart disease across a large health system. We compared 12-month event-free survival (freedom from all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding), all-cause death, target lesion revascularization, and bleeding events for patients receiving complex versus noncomplex PCI and derived risk estimates with Cox regression models. We included 513 patients (mean age, 81±5 years). Patients receiving complex PCI versus noncomplex PCI did not significantly differ across a host of clinical characteristics including cardiovascular disease features, noncardiac comorbidities, guideline-directed medical therapy use, and frailty. Patients receiving complex PCI versus noncomplex PCI experienced worse event-free survival (80.4% versus 86.8%), which was not significant in adjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38 [95% CI, 0.88-2.16]). All-cause death at 1 year for patients undergoing complex PCI was nearly double that seen for patients receiving noncomplex PCI (10.2% versus 5.9%), and the risk was significant in models adjusted for clinical characteristics (HR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.02-3.79]). Target lesion revascularization risk was lower for patients receiving complex PCI (2.2% versus 3.5%, adjusted HR), but bleeding events were not statistically different between groups (25.3% versus 20.5%; P=0.19). Conclusions Complex PCI in older adults with stable ischemic heart disease was associated with lower risk of target lesion revascularization but higher all-cause death compared with noncomplex PCI.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a treatment option for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis across the entire spectrum of surgical risk. Recent trial data have led to the expansion of TAVR into lower-risk patients. With iterative technological advances and successive increases in procedural experience, the occurrence of complications following TAVR has declined. One of the most feared complications remains stroke, and patients consider stroke a worse outcome than death. There has therefore been great interest in strategies to mitigate the risk of stroke in patients undergoing TAVR. In this paper, we will discuss mechanisms and predictors of stroke after TAVR and describe the currently available cerebral embolic protection devices, including their design and relevant clinical studies pertaining to their use. We will also review the current overall evidence base for cerebral embolic protection during TAVR and ongoing randomized controlled trials. Finally, we will discuss our pragmatic recommendations for the use of cerebral embolic protection devices in patients undergoing TAVR.

AIMS: The effect of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation on cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure is an important outstanding research question. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to medical therapy in patients with AF and heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. The pre-specified primary endpoint was all-cause mortality in trials with at least 2 years of follow-up. The secondary endpoint was heart failure hospitalization. Sensitivity analyses were performed for trials with any follow-up and trials deemed at low risk of bias. Eight trials (1390 patients) were included. Seven hundred and seven patients were randomized to catheter ablation and 683 to medical therapy. In the primary analysis (three trials, n = 977), catheter ablation reduced mortality compared with medical therapy [relative risk (RR): 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44 to 0.84, P = 0.003]. Catheter ablation also reduced heart failure hospitalizations compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49-0.74, P < 0.001). The effect on stroke was not statistically significant (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28-1.37, P = 0.237). There was low heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analyses. CONCLUSION: In patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure, catheter ablation reduces mortality and the occurrence of heart failure hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of ventricular tachycardia (VT) catheter ablation is an important outstanding research question. We undertook a reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing ablation to medical therapy in patients developing VT after MI. METHODS: We systematically identified all trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with VT and prior MI. The prespecified primary endpoint was reconstructed individual patient assessment of all-cause mortality. Prespecified secondary endpoints included trial-level assessment of all-cause mortality, VT recurrence or defibrillator shocks and all-cause hospitalisations. Prespecified subgroup analysis was performed for ablation approaches involving only substrate modification without VT activation mapping. Sensitivity analyses were performed depending on the proportion of patients with prior MI included. RESULTS: Eight trials, recruiting a total of 874 patients, were included. Of these 874 patients, 430 were randomised to catheter ablation and 444 were randomised to medical therapy. Catheter ablation reduced all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy when synthesising individual patient data (HR 0.63; 95% CI [0.41-0.96]; p=0.03), but not in trial-level analysis (RR 0.91; 95% CI [0.67-1.23]; p=0.53; I2=0%). Catheter ablation significantly reduced VT recurrence, defibrillator shocks and hospitalisations compared with medical therapy. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analyses. CONCLUSION: In patients with postinfarct VT, catheter ablation reduces mortality.

Ischemic heart disease is the largest cause of death worldwide and the most common cause of heart failure (HF). The incidence and prevalence of HF are increasing owing to an aging population and improvements in the acute cardiac care of previously fatal conditions such as myocardial infarction. Strategies to improve outcomes in patients with ischemic systolic HF are urgently needed. There is systematic underutilization of testing for coronary artery disease in patients with HF, and revascularization is performed in an even smaller minority despite evidence for reduced mortality with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over medical therapy in the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a less-invasive approach to coronary revascularization; however, the recent Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED)-British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS2) trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of PCI compared with that of medical therapy in patients with ischemic systolic HF. The comparative effectiveness of PCI and CABG for patients with ischemic systolic HF remains unknown, particularly in the era of contemporary medical therapy. In this review, we discuss the benefit of CABG in ischemic systolic HF, its underutilization, and the unmet clinical need. We also review the recent REVIVED-BCIS2 trial comparing PCI to medical therapy, as well as upcoming randomized controlled trials of PCI for ischemic systolic HF and persistent evidence gaps that will exist despite anticipated data from ongoing trials. There remains a need for an adequately powered randomized controlled trials to establish the comparative clinical effectiveness of PCI vs CABG in ischemic systolic HF in the era of contemporary revascularization approaches and medical therapy, as well as trials of coronary revascularization in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction or less severe forms of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Bicuspid aortic valve disease (BAVD) is present in up to half of all patients referred for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) yet was an exclusion criterion for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to SAVR. Nonetheless, approximately 10% of patients currently treated with TAVR have BAVD and available observational data for performing TAVR in these patients are limited by selection bias. Many in the cardiovascular community have advocated for RCTs in this population, but none have been performed. The Heart Valve Collaboratory (HVC) is a multidisciplinary community of stakeholders with the aim of creating significant advances in valvular heart disease by stimulating clinical research, engaging in educational activities, and advancing regulatory science. In December 2020, the HVC hosted a Global Multidisciplinary workshop involving over 100 international experts in the field. Following this 2-day symposium, working groups with varied expertise were convened to discuss BAVD, including the need for and design of RCTs. This review, conducted under the auspices of the HVC, summarizes available data and knowledge gaps regarding procedural therapy for BAVD, outlining specific challenges for trials in this population. We also propose several potential studies that could be performed and discuss respective strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Finally, we present a roadmap for future directions in clinical research in TAVR for BAVD with an emphasis both on RCTs and also prospective registries focused on disease phenotyping to develop parameters and risk scores that could ultimately be applied to patients to inform clinical decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) has been considered the standard of care for stroke prophylaxis for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation; however, many individuals are unable or unwilling to take long-term OAC. The safety and efficacy of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have been controversial, and new trial data have recently emerged. We therefore sought to perform an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing OAC to percutaneous LAAC, focusing on individual clinical endpoints. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2000 through December 2021 for all RCTs comparing percutaneous LAAC to OAC in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Fixed and random effects meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) were performed using the longest follow-up duration available by intention-to-treat. The prespecified primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Three RCTs enrolling 1516 patients were identified. The weighted mean follow-up was 54.7 months. LAAC was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.96; p = 0.023), hemorrhagic stroke (HR 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.61; p = 0.003), and major nonprocedural bleeding (HR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.74; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between LAAC and OAC for any other endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence from RCTs suggests LAAC therapy is associated with reduced long-term risk of death compared with OAC. This may be driven by reductions in hemorrhagic stroke and major nonprocedural bleeding. There were no significant differences in the risk of all stroke. Further large-scale clinical trials are needed to validate these findings.

AIMS: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors have now been evaluated for the treatment of heart failure in several placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) across various ejection fraction ranges, but these trials were powered for composite outcomes rather than individual clinical endpoints. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to assess their safety and efficacy on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure hospitalizations. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prospectively registered random-effects meta-analysis of all RCTs comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors to placebo in patients with heart failure. The pre-specified primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, and the composite of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Four trials with 15 684 patients were eligible. The SGLT-2 inhibitor tested was empagliflozin in two trials, dapagliflozin in one trial, and sotagliflozin in one trial. The weighted-mean follow-up was 20.0 months. The hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.01, P = 0.071. There was a 12% reduction in cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97, P = 0.012), and a 30% reduction in heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77, P

AIMS: This meta-analysis aims to quantify the association of reduced coronary flow with all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) across a broad range of patient groups and pathologies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all studies between 1 January 2000 and 1 August 2020, where coronary flow was measured and clinical outcomes were reported. The endpoints were all-cause mortality and MACE. Estimates of effect were calculated from published hazard ratios (HRs) using a random-effects model. Seventy-nine studies with a total of 59 740 subjects were included. Abnormal coronary flow reserve (CFR) was associated with a higher incidence of all-cause mortality [HR: 3.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.39-5.97] and a higher incidence of MACE (HR 3.42, 95% CI: 2.92-3.99). Each 0.1 unit reduction in CFR was associated with a proportional increase in mortality (per 0.1 CFR unit HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.29) and MACE (per 0.1 CFR unit HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04-1.11). In patients with isolated coronary microvascular dysfunction, an abnormal CFR was associated with a higher incidence of mortality (HR: 5.44, 95% CI: 3.78-7.83) and MACE (HR: 3.56, 95% CI: 2.14-5.90). Abnormal CFR was also associated with a higher incidence of MACE in patients with acute coronary syndromes (HR: 3.76, 95% CI: 2.35-6.00), heart failure (HR: 6.38, 95% CI: 1.95-20.90), heart transplant (HR: 3.32, 95% CI: 2.34-4.71), and diabetes mellitus (HR: 7.47, 95% CI: 3.37-16.55). CONCLUSION: Reduced coronary flow is strongly associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and MACE across a wide range of pathological processes. This finding supports recent recommendations that coronary flow should be measured more routinely in clinical practice, to target aggressive vascular risk modification for individuals at higher risk.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis across the spectrum of surgical risks based on a series of foundational randomized clinical trials. Of note, patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease were excluded from all these pivotal randomized trials, leaving a significant knowledge gap because BAVs are commonly encountered in patients referred for aortic valve surgery or intervention. In this comprehensive review, we aim to provide heart teams with a detailed insight into how to approach patients with BAV disease, focusing on imaging and characterization of bicuspid valves, an overview of surgical approaches, and an understanding of the current data behind the role of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with BAV disease.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines provide class I recommendations for aortic valve intervention for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) or reduced ejection fraction, but the cornerstone of management for asymptomatic patients has been watchful waiting. This is based on historical nonrandomized data, but randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have now been performed of early surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for asymptomatic severe AS. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing early SAVR to watchful waiting for asymptomatic severe AS, focusing on individual end points of death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. METHODS: We systematically identified all RCTs comparing early SAVR to watchful waiting in patients with asymptomatic severe AS and synthesized the data in a random-effects meta-analysis. The prespecified primary end point was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Two trials randomizing 302 patients were included. Early SAVR lead to a 55% reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.85; P = .014). There was no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). Early SAVR also lead to a 79% reduction in HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.96; P = .044). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe asymptomatic AS and normal ejection fraction, early SAVR reduces death and HF hospitalization compared to initial conservative management. This challenges current treatment standards and has implications for the clinical care of these patients and for guidelines.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common cause of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and heart failure (HF). Revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduces all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy alone for these patients. Despite this, CABG is performed in a minority of patients with HF, partly due to patient unwillingness or inability to undergo major cardiac surgery and partly due to physician reluctance to refer for surgery due to high operative risk. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a less-invasive method of revascularization that has the potential to reduce periprocedural complications compared with CABG in patients with HF. Recent advances in PCI technology and technique have made it realistic to achieve more complete revascularization with PCI in high-risk patients with HF, although no randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of PCI in HF compared with either medical therapy or CABG have been performed. In this review, we discuss the currently available evidence for PCI in HF and the association between the extent of revascularization and clinical outcomes in HF. We also review recent advances in PCI technology and techniques with the potential to improve clinical outcomes in HF. Finally, we discuss emerging clinical trial evidence of revascularization in HF and the large, persistent evidence gaps that should be addressed with future clinical trials of revascularization in HF.

BACKGROUND: Coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a life-threatening complication. For patients at elevated risk, it is not known how valve choice is influenced by clinical and anatomic factors and how outcomes differ between valve platforms. For patients at high risk of coronary obstruction, we sought to describe the anatomical and clinical characteristics of patients treated with both balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expanding (SE) valves. METHODS: This was a multicenter international registry of patients undergoing TAVR who are considered to be at high risk of coronary obstruction and receiving pre-emptive coronary protection. RESULTS: A total of 236 patients were included. Patients receiving SE valves were more likely to undergo valve-in-valve procedures and also had smaller sinuses of Valsalva and valve-to-coronary distance. Three-year cardiac mortality was 21.6% with SE vs 3.7% with BE valves. This was primarily driven by increased rates of definite or probable coronary occlusion, which occurred in 12.1% of patients with SE valves vs 2.1% in patients with BE valves. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVR with coronary protection, those treated with SE valves had increased rates of clinical and anatomic features that increase the risk of coronary obstruction. These include an increased frequency of valve-in-valve procedures, smaller sinuses of Valsalva, and smaller valve-to-coronary distances. These patients were observed to have increased cardiac mortality compared with patients treated with BE valves, but this is likely due to their higher risk clinical and anatomic phenotypes rather than as a function of the valve type itself.

AIMS: Contemporary 2nd-generation thin-strut drug-eluting stents (DES) are considered standard of care for revascularization of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A previous meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 11 658 patients demonstrated a 16% reduction in the 1-year risk of target lesion failure (TLF) with ultrathin-strut DES compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. Whether this benefit is sustained longer term is not known, and newer trial data may inform these relative outcomes. We therefore sought to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing clinical outcomes with ultrathin-strut DES (≤70 µm strut thickness) with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of all RCTs comparing ultrathin-strut DES to conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES. The pre-specified primary endpoint was long-term TLF, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). Secondary endpoints included the components of TLF, stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death. There were 16 eligible trials in which 20 701 patients were randomized. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 2.5 years. Ultrathin-strut DES were associated with a 15% reduction in long-term TLF compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES [relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.96, P = 0.008] driven by a 25% reduction in CD-TLR (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.92, P = 0.005). There were no significant differences between stent types in the risks of MI, ST, cardiac death, or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: At a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, ultrathin-strut DES reduced the risk of TLF, driven by less CD-TLR compared with conventional 2nd-generation thin-strut DES, with similar risks of MI, ST, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality.

BACKGROUND: There is great degree of interobserver variability in the visual angiographic assessment of left main coronary disease (LMCD). Fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound are often used in this setting. The use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for evaluation of LMCD has not been well studied. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of iFR in the assessment of angiographically intermediate LMCD. METHODS: This is an international multicenter retrospective observational study of patients who underwent both iFR and intravascular ultrasound evaluation for angiographically intermediate LMCD. An independent core laboratory performed blinded off-line analysis of all intravascular ultrasound data. A minimum lumen area of 6 mm2 was used as the cutoff for significant disease. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five patients (mean age, 68.4±9.5 years, 84.8% male) were included in this analysis. Receiver operating curve analysis showed that an iFR of ≤0.89 identified minimum lumen area

AIMS: The optimal method of revascularization for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is controversial. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has traditionally been considered the gold standard therapy, and recent randomized trials comparing CABG with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) have reported conflicting outcomes. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and updated meta-analysis comparing CABG to PCI with DES for the treatment of LMCAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing PCI with DES vs. CABG in patients with LMCAD. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization. All analyses were by intention-to-treat. There were five eligible trials in which 4612 patients were randomized. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 67.1 months. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG for the risk of all-cause mortality [relative risk (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.32; P = 0.779] or cardiac death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79-1.34; P = 0.817). There were also no significant differences in the risk of stroke (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.35-1.50; P = 0.400) or MI (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.96-1.56; P = 0.110). Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with an increased risk of unplanned revascularization (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.49-2.02; P

Background For patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease, the optimal treatment of the non-infarct-related artery has been controversial. This up-to-date meta-analysis focusing on individual clinical end points was performed to further evaluate the benefit of complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease. Methods and Results We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention to culprit-only revascularization for multivessel disease in STEMI and performed a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary efficacy end point was cardiovascular death analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. Ten studies (7542 patients) were included: 3664 patients were randomized to complete revascularization and 3878 to culprit-only revascularization. Across all patients, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-only revascularization for reduction in the risk of cardiovascular death (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98; P=0.037; I2=21.8%) and reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79; P

BackgroundPhysicians 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).ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to establish the safety of deferring treatment in the LAD using FFR or iFR within the DEFINE-FLAIR trial.MethodsMACE 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsiFR-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.