Assessment of left anterior descending artery stenosis of intermediate severity by fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and non-invasive coronary flow reserve

Computational instantaneous wave-free ratio (IFR) for patient-specific coronary artery stenoses using 1D network models

In this work, we estimate the diagnostic threshold of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) through the use of a one-dimensional haemodynamic framework. To this end, we first compared the computed fractional flow reserve (cFFR) predicted from a 1D computational framework with invasive clinical measurements. The framework shows excellent promise and utilises minimal patient data from a cohort of 52 patients with a total of 66 stenoses. The diagnostic accuracy of the cFFR model was 75.76%, with a sensitivity of 71.43%, a specificity of 77.78%, a positive predictive value of 60%, and a negative predictive value of 85.37%. The validated model was then used to estimate the diagnostic threshold of iFR. The model determined a quadratic relationship between cFFR and the ciFR. The iFR diagnostic threshold was determined to be 0.8910 from a receiver operating characteristic curve that is in the range of 0.89 to 0.9 that is normally reported in clinical studies.

Instantaneous wave-free ratio as an alternative to fractional flow reserve in assessment of moderate coronary stenoses: A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains underutilized due to practical concerns related to the need for hyperemic agents. These concerns have prompted the study of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), a vasodilator-free index of coronary stenosis. Non-inferior cardiovascular outcomes have been demonstrated in two recent randomized clinic trials. We performed this meta-analysis to provide a necessary update of the diagnostic accuracy of iFR referenced to FFR based on the addition of eight more recent studies and 3727 more lesions.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Central, ProQuest, and Web of Science databases for full text articles published through May 31, 2017 to identify studies addressing the diagnostic accuracy of iFR referenced to FFR≤0.80. The following keywords were used: "instantaneous wave-free ratio" OR "iFR" AND "fractional flow reserve" OR "FFR."

RESULTS

In total, 16 studies comprising 5756 lesions were identified. Pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates of iFR versus FFR≤0.80 were: sensitivity, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.76-0.79); specificity, 0.83 (0.81-0.84); positive likelihood ratio, 4.54 (3.85-5.35); negative likelihood ratio, 0.28 (0.24-0.32); diagnostic odds ratio, 17.38 (14.16-21.34); area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.87; and an overall diagnostic accuracy of 0.81 (0.78-0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, iFR showed excellent agreement with FFR as a resting index of coronary stenosis severity without the undesired effects and cost of hyperemic agents. When considering along with its clinical outcome data and ease of application, the diagnostic accuracy of iFR supports its use as a suitable alternative to FFR for physiology-guided revascularization of moderate coronary stenoses.

SUMMARY

We performed a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of iFR referenced to FFR. iFR showed excellent agreement with FFR as a resting index of coronary stenosis severity without the undesired effects and cost of hyperemic agents. This supports its use as a suitable alternative to FFR for physiology-guided revascularization of moderate coronary stenoses.