The role of resting pressure parameters, i.e. instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and resting distal coronary pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) in assessing functionally significant stenosis remains controversial. We sought to assess the diagnostic performance of iFR and resting whole-cycle Pd/Pa in Asian patients.
In this study, 238 consecutive lesions (no total occlusions) in which fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured with both intravenous and intracoronary adenosine administration were included. Coded resting pressure data were sent to the core laboratory in which iFR was calculated in a blinded fashion.
FFR and iFR had unimodal distributions and the correlation was r = 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.82). In a receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis, iFR had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.9 at FFR ≤ 0.80. The best cut-off value for iFR was 0.90 with a sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy of 76%, 86%, 82% and 80%, and 82%, respectively. The resting whole-cycle Pd/Pa cut-off of 0.91 demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 82% (AUC 0.9). However, iFR had higher discriminatory power than the resting whole-cycle Pd/Pa.
Both iFR and resting whole-cycle Pd/Pa showed good diagnostic performance to define the functionally significant stenosis in an independent Asian cohort distributed unimodally and without total occlusions. However, further validation is needed to explore the areas of disagreement between different physiologic parameters prior to adoption of resting pressure parameters into routine clinical practice.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to International Journal of Cardiology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy.Circulation. 2008; 117: 1283-1291
- Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) study two-year follow-up: outcomes of patients randomized to initial strategies of medical therapy versus revascularization.Circulation. 1997; 95: 2037-2043
- Economic evaluation of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease.Circulation. 2010; 122: 2545-2550
- Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses.N Engl J Med. 1996; 334: 1703-1708
- Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55: 2816-2821
- Physiological basis of clinically used coronary hemodynamic indices.Circulation. 2006; 113: 446-455
- Development and validation of a new adenosine-independent index of stenosis severity from coronary wave-intensity analysis: results of the ADVISE (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation) study.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59: 1392-1402
- Classification performance of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve in a clinical population of intermediate coronary stenoses: results of the ADVISE registry.EuroIntervention. 2013; 9: 91-101
- Instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve: close, but not close enough!.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59 ([author reply 7–8]): 1915-1916
- Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention.N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 213-224
- Resting Pd/Pa measured with intracoronary pressure wire strongly predicts fractional flow reserve.J Invasive Cardiol. 2010; 22: 260-265
Published online: July 29, 2013
Accepted: July 2, 2013
Received in revised form: June 27, 2013
Received: January 9, 2013
© 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.