Network meta-analysis comparing iFR versus FFR versus coronary angiography to drive coronary revascularization

Instantaneous wave free ratio vs. fractional flow reserve and 5-year mortality: iFR SWEDEHEART and DEFINE FLAIR

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guidelines recommend revascularization of intermediate epicardial artery stenosis to be guided by evidence of ischaemia. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are equally recommended. Individual 5-year results of two major randomized trials comparing FFR with iFR-guided revascularization suggested increased all-cause mortality following iFR-guided revascularization. The aim of this study was a study-level meta-analysis of the 5-year outcome data in iFR-SWEDEHEART (NCT02166736) and DEFINE-FLAIR (NCT02053038).

METHODS

Composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and its individual components [all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularisation] were analysed. Raw Kaplan-Meier estimates, numbers at risk, and number of events were extracted at 5-year follow-up and analysed using the ipdfc package (Stata version 18, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

RESULTS

In total, iFR and FFR-guided revascularization was performed in 2254 and 2257 patients, respectively. Revascularization was more often deferred in the iFR group [n = 1128 (50.0%)] vs. the FFR group [n = 1021 (45.2%); P = .001]. In the iFR-guided group, the number of deaths, MACE, unplanned revascularization, and MI was 188 (8.3%), 484 (21.5%), 235 (10.4%), and 123 (5.5%) vs. 143 (6.3%), 420 (18.6%), 241 (10.7%), and 123 (5.4%) in the FFR group. Hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] estimates for MACE were 1.18 [1.04; 1.34], all-cause mortality 1.34 [1.08; 1.67], unplanned revascularization 0.99 [0.83; 1.19], and MI 1.02 [0.80; 1.32].

CONCLUSIONS

Five-year all-cause mortality and MACE rates were increased with revascularization guided by iFR compared to FFR. Rates of unplanned revascularization and MI were equal in the two groups.

The optimal timing for non-culprit percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: A pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background and aims

Recently, several randomized trials have shown that patients with multivessel disease (MVD) often pursue complete revascularization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to improve their prognosis. However, the optimal time for the non-culprit artery has been controversial. This study aimed to determine the optimal strategy for revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing three revascularization strategies [i.e., complete revascularization at the index procedure (CR), complete revascularization as a staged procedure (SR), or culprit-only revascularization (COR)] in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were included. We performed both pairwise and network meta-analyses. Network meta-analysis was performed using mixed treatment comparison models.

Results

17 trials with 8568 patients were included. In the network meta-analysis, the most interesting finding was that staged revascularization increased the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared with complete revascularization at the index procedure [odds ratio (OR): 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07–3.49]. In the pairwise meta-analysis, complete revascularization reduced the incidence of MACE [risk ratio (RR): 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48–0.79, p < 0.001], mainly because it reduced the probability of unplanned repeat revascularization (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.33–0.75, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, or nonfatal re-myocardial infarction (MI).

Conclusion

Our analysis suggests that complete revascularization should be performed in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, and complete revascularization at the index procedure is superior to staged revascularization in reducing the risk of MACE events.

Provisional stenting or not provisional stenting: seven critical points for bifurcations treatment with a glimpse on left main bifurcation stenting

Stenting of coronary bifurcation lesions represents a challenge for the interventional cardiologist. A bifurcation lesion could be treated with several techniques. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to decide the strategical approach at the beginning of the procedure evaluating the patient's bifurcation anatomy, the angle between main and side branch, plaque burden at the level of the carina, and size of the side branch. Although it is clear that all bifurcation's treatment techniques have each one their advantages and disadvantages, provisional stenting remains the gold-standard technique, because it leaves the possibility to switch to other technical solutions with optimal angiographic and long-term clinical results. In this review, different tips and tricks for left main and bifurcation stenting are debated.

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.