Impact of stenosis resistance and coronary flow capacity on fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio discordance: a combined analysis of DEFINE-FLOW and IDEAL

BACKGROUND

The pressure-derived parameters fractional flow reserve (FFR) and the emerging instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are the most widely applied invasive coronary physiology indices to guide revascularisation. However, approximately 15-20% of intermediate stenoses show discordant FFR and iFR, and therapeutical consensus is lacking.

AIMS

We sought to associate hyperaemic stenosis resistance index, coronary flow reserve (CFR) and coronary flow capacity (CFC) to FFR/iFR discordance.

METHODS

We assessed pressure and flow measurements of 647 intermediate lesions (593 patients) of two multi-centre international studies.

RESULTS

FFR and iFR were discordant in 15% of all lesions (97 out of 647). FFR+/iFR- lesions had similar hyperaemic average peak velocity (hAPV), CFR and CFC as FFR-/iFR- lesions, whereas FFR-/iFR+ lesions had similar hAPV, CFR and CFC as FFR+/iFR+ lesions (p > 0.05 for all). FFR+/iFR- lesions were associated with lower baseline stenosis resistance, but not hyperaemic stenosis resistance, compared with FFR-/iFR+ lesions (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Discordance with FFR+/iFR- is characterised by maximal flow values, CFR, and CFC patterns similar to FFR-/iFR- concordance that justifies conservative therapy. Discordance with FFR-/iFR+ on the other hand, is characterised by low flow values, CFR, and CFC patterns similar to iFR+/FFR+ concordance that may benefit from percutaneous coronary intervention.

Prognostic value of microvascular resistance and its association to fractional flow reserve: a DEFINE-FLOW substudy

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of hyperemic microvascular resistance (HMR) and its relationship with hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR) index and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in stable coronary artery disease.

Methods

This is a substudy of the DEFINE-FLOW cohort (NCT02328820), which evaluated the prognosis of lesions (n=456) after combined FFR and coronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment in a prospective, non-blinded, non-randomised, multicentre study in 12 centres in Europe and Japan. Participants (n=430) were evaluated by wire-based measurement of coronary pressure, flow and vascular resistance (ComboWire XT, Phillips Volcano, San Diego, California, USA).

Results

Mean FFR and CFR were 0.82±0.10 and 2.2±0.6, respectively. When divided according to FFR and CFR thresholds (above and below 0.80 and 2.0, respectively), HMR was highest in lesions with FFR>0.80 and CFR<2.0 (n=99) compared with lesions with FFR≤0.80 and CFR≥2.0 (n=68) (2.92±1.2 vs 1.91±0.64 mm Hg/cm/s, p<0.001). The FFR value was proportional to the ratio between HMR and the HMR+HSR (total resistance), 95% limits of agreement (−0.032; 0.019), bias (−0.003±0.02) and correlation (r²=0.98, p<0.0001). Cox regression model using HMR as continuous parameter for target vessel failure showed an HR of 1.51, 95% CI (0.9 to 2.4), p=0.10.

Conclusions

Increased HMR was not associated with a higher rate of adverse clinical events, in this population of mainly stable patients. FFR can be equally well expressed as HMR/HMR+HSR, thereby providing an alternative conceptual formulation linking epicardial severity with microvascular resistance.

Trial registration number

NCT02328820.

Characterization of quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve discordance using doppler flow and clinical follow-up

The physiological mechanisms of quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve disagreement are not fully understood. We aimed to characterize the coronary flow and resistance profile of intermediate stenosed epicardial coronary arteries with concordant and discordant FFR and QFR. Post-hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLOW study. Anatomical and Doppler-derived physiological parameters were compared for lesions with FFR+QFR- (n = 18) vs. FFR+QFR+ (n = 43) and for FFR-QFR+ (n = 34) vs. FFR-QFR- (n = 139). The association of QFR results with the two-year rate of target vessel failure was assessed in the proportion of vessels (n = 195) that did not undergo revascularization. Coronary flow reserve was higher [2.3 (IQR: 2.1-2.7) vs. 1.9 (IQR: 1.5-2.4)], hyperemic microvascular resistance lower [1.72 (IQR: 1.48-2.31) vs. 2.26 (IQR: 1.79-2.87)] and anatomical lesion severity less severe [% diameter stenosis 45.5 (IQR: 41.5-52.5) vs. 58.5 (IQR: 53.1-64.0)] for FFR+QFR- lesions compared with FFR+QFR+ lesions. In comparison of FFR-QFR+ vs. FFR-QFR- lesions, lesion severity was more severe [% diameter stenosis 55.2 (IQR: 51.7-61.3) vs. 43.4 (IQR: 35.0-50.6)] while coronary flow reserve [2.2 (IQR: 1.9-2.9) vs. 2.2 (IQR: 1.9-2.6)] and hyperemic microvascular resistance [2.34 (IQR: 1.85-2.81) vs. 2.57 (IQR: 2.01-3.22)] did not differ. The agreement and diagnostic performance of FFR using hyperemic stenosis resistance (> 0.80) as reference standard was higher compared with QFR and coronary flow reserve. Disagreement between FFR and QFR is partly explained by physiological and anatomical factors. Clinical Trials Registration https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01813435. Changes in central physiological and anatomical parameters according to FFR and QFR match/mismatch quadrants.