Reclassification of Treatment Strategy With Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve: A Substudy From the iFR-SWEDEHEART Trial

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reclassification of Treatment Strategy With Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve

T2 - A Substudy From the iFR-SWEDEHEART Trial

AU - Andell, Pontus

AU - Berntorp, Karolina

AU - Christiansen, Evald H.

AU - Gudmundsdottir, Ingibjörg J.

AU - Sandhall, Lennart

AU - Venetsanos, Dimitrios

AU - Erlinge, David

AU - Fröbert, Ole

AU - Koul, Sasha

AU - Reitan, Christian

AU - Götberg, Matthias

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Objectives: The authors sought to compare reclassification of treatment strategy following instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR). Background: iFR was noninferior to FFR in 2 large randomized controlled trials in guiding coronary revascularization. Reclassification of treatment strategy by FFR is well-studied, but similar reports on iFR are lacking. Methods: The iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome Trial) study randomized 2,037 participants with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome to treatment guided by iFR or FFR. Interventionalists entered the preferred treatment (optimal medical therapy [OMT], percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) on the basis of coronary angiograms, and the final treatment decision was mandated by the iFR/FFR measurements. Results: In the iFR/FFR (n = 1,009/n = 1,004) populations, angiogram-based treatment approaches were similar (p = 0.50) with respect to OMT (38%/35%), PCI of 1 (37%/39%), 2 (15%/16%), and 3 vessels (2%/2%) and CABG (8%/8%). iFR and FFR reclassified 40% and 41% of patients, respectively (p = 0.78). The majority of reclassifications were conversion of PCI to OMT in both the iFR/FFR groups (31.4%/29.0%). Reclassification increased with increasing number of lesions evaluated (odds ratio per evaluated lesion for FFR: 1.46 [95% confidence interval: 1.22 to 1.76] vs. iFR 1.37 [95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.59]). Reclassification rates for patients with 1, 2, and 3 assessed vessels were 36%, 52%, and 53% (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Reclassification of treatment strategy of intermediate lesions was common and occurred in 40% of patients with iFR or FFR. The most frequent reclassification was conversion from PCI to OMT regardless of physiology modality. Irrespective of the physiological index reclassification of angiogram-based treatment strategy increased with the number of lesions evaluated.

AB - Objectives: The authors sought to compare reclassification of treatment strategy following instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR). Background: iFR was noninferior to FFR in 2 large randomized controlled trials in guiding coronary revascularization. Reclassification of treatment strategy by FFR is well-studied, but similar reports on iFR are lacking. Methods: The iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome Trial) study randomized 2,037 participants with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome to treatment guided by iFR or FFR. Interventionalists entered the preferred treatment (optimal medical therapy [OMT], percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) on the basis of coronary angiograms, and the final treatment decision was mandated by the iFR/FFR measurements. Results: In the iFR/FFR (n = 1,009/n = 1,004) populations, angiogram-based treatment approaches were similar (p = 0.50) with respect to OMT (38%/35%), PCI of 1 (37%/39%), 2 (15%/16%), and 3 vessels (2%/2%) and CABG (8%/8%). iFR and FFR reclassified 40% and 41% of patients, respectively (p = 0.78). The majority of reclassifications were conversion of PCI to OMT in both the iFR/FFR groups (31.4%/29.0%). Reclassification increased with increasing number of lesions evaluated (odds ratio per evaluated lesion for FFR: 1.46 [95% confidence interval: 1.22 to 1.76] vs. iFR 1.37 [95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.59]). Reclassification rates for patients with 1, 2, and 3 assessed vessels were 36%, 52%, and 53% (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Reclassification of treatment strategy of intermediate lesions was common and occurred in 40% of patients with iFR or FFR. The most frequent reclassification was conversion from PCI to OMT regardless of physiology modality. Irrespective of the physiological index reclassification of angiogram-based treatment strategy increased with the number of lesions evaluated.

KW - coronary artery bypass grafting

KW - coronary artery disease

KW - coronary physiology

KW - FFR

KW - iFR

KW - percutaneous coronary intervention

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.07.035

DO - 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.07.035

M3 - Article

C2 - 30336812

AN - SCOPUS:85054316651

VL - 11

SP - 2084

EP - 2094

JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

SN - 1876-7605

IS - 20

ER -