Comparison of Clinically Adjudicated Versus Flow-Based Adjudication of Revascularization Events in Randomized Controlled Trials

Prognostic role of discordance between quantitative flow ratio and visual estimation in revascularization guidance

Aims

Revascularization guided by functional severity has presented improved outcomes compared with visual angiographic guidance. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a reliable angiography-based method for functional assessment. We sought to investigate the prognostic value of discordance between QFR and visual estimation in coronary revascularization guidance.

Methods and results

We performed offline QFR analysis on all-comers undergoing coronary angiography. Vessels with calculated QFR were divided into four groups based on the decision to perform or defer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and on the QFR result, i.e.: Group A (PCI-, QFR > 0.8); Group B (PCI+, QFR ≤ 0.8); Group C (PCI+, QFR > 0.8); Group D (PCI-, QFR ≤ 0.8). Patients with at least one vessel falling within the disagreement groups formed the discordance group, whereas the remaining patients formed the concordance group. The primary endpoint was the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischaemia-driven revascularization. Overall, 546 patients were included in the study. Discordance between QFR and visual estimation was found in 26.2% of patients. After a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, the discordance group had a significantly higher rate of the composite outcome (hazard ratio: 3.34, 95% confidence interval 1.99-5.60, P < 0.001). Both disagreement vessel Groups C and D were associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared with agreement Groups A and B.

Conclusion

Discordance between QFR and visual estimation in revascularization guidance was associated with a worse long-term prognosis. Our results highlight the importance of proper patient selection for intervention and the need to avoid improper stent implantations when not dictated by a comprehensive functional assessment.

Definitions and Standardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations

The Bifurcation Academic Research Consortium (Bif-ARC) project originated from the need to overcome the paucity of standardization and comparability between studies involving bifurcation coronary lesions. This document is the result of a collaborative effort between academic research organizations and the most renowned interventional cardiology societies focused on bifurcation lesions in Europe, the United States, and Asia. This consensus provides standardized definitions for bifurcation lesions; the criteria to judge the side branch relevance; the procedural, mechanistic, and clinical endpoints for every type of bifurcation study; and the follow-up methods. Considering the complexity of bifurcation lesions and their evaluation, detailed instructions and technical aspects for site and core laboratory analysis of bifurcation lesions are also reported. The recommendations included within this consensus will facilitate pooled analyses and the effective comparison of data in the future, improving the clinical relevance of trials in bifurcation lesions, and the quality of care in this subset of patients.

Definitions and Standardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations

The Bifurcation Academic Research Consortium (Bif-ARC) project originated from the need to overcome the paucity of standardization and comparability between studies involving bifurcation coronary lesions. This document is the result of a collaborative effort between academic research organizations and the most renowned interventional cardiology societies focused on bifurcation lesions in Europe, the United States, and Asia. This consensus provides standardized definitions for bifurcation lesions; the criteria to judge the side branch relevance; the procedural, mechanistic, and clinical endpoints for every type of bifurcation study; and the follow-up methods. Considering the complexity of bifurcation lesions and their evaluation, detailed instructions and technical aspects for site and core laboratory analysis of bifurcation lesions are also reported. The recommendations included within this consensus will facilitate pooled analyses and the effective comparison of data in the future, improving the clinical relevance of trials in bifurcation lesions, and the quality of care in this subset of patients.