Combined Assessment of FFR and CFR for Decision Making in Coronary Revascularization: From the Multicenter International ILIAS Registry

Tim P. van de Hoef, Joo Myung Lee, Coen K. M. Boerhout, Guus A. de Waard, Ji-Hyun Jung, Seung Hun Lee, Hernán Mejía-Rentería, Masahiro Hoshino, Mauro Echavarria-Pinto, Martijn Meuwissen, Hitoshi Matsuo, Maribel Madera-Cambero, Ashkan Eftekhari, Mohamed A. Effat, Tadashi Murai, Koen Marques, Joon-Hyung Doh, Evald H. Christiansen, Rupak Banerjee, Chang-Wook NamGiampaolo Niccoli, Masafumi Nakayama, Nobuhiro Tanaka, Eun-Seok Shin, Niels van Royen, Steven A. J. Chamuleau, Paul Knaapen, Javier Escaned, Tsunekazu Kakuta, Bon Kwon Koo, Jan J. Piek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the clinical implications of combined assessment of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR). Background: Combined assessment of FFR and CFR allows detailed characterization of pathophysiology in chronic coronary syndromes. Data on the clinical implications of distinct FFR and CFR patterns are limited, leading to uncertainty regarding their relevance. Methods: Patients with chronic coronary syndromes and obstructive coronary artery disease were selected from the multicenter ILIAS (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes) registry. Patients were classified into 4 groups on the basis of FFR ≤0.80 and CFR <2.0. The endpoint was the 5-year target vessel failure (TVF) rate. Results: A total of 2,143 patients with 2,725 lesions were included. Compared with normal FFR/normal CFR, low FFR/low CFR carried the highest risk for TVF (HR: 5.4; 95% CI: 3.2-9.3; P < 0.001), significantly higher than in revascularized vessels (P = 0.007). Discordance, with either low FFR/normal CFR or normal FFR/low CFR, was associated with increased TVF rates compared with normal FFR/normal CFR (low FFR/normal CFR: HR: 3.5 [95% CI: 2.2-5.4; P < 0.001]; normal FFR/low CFR: HR: 3.0 [95% CI: 1.9-4.7; P < 0.001]). No difference in 5-year TVF was observed between the 2 discordant groups (P = 0.57) or between the discordant groups and the revascularized group (P = 0.26 vs low FFR/normal CFR; P = 0.60 vs normal FFR/low CFR). Conclusions: Impaired coronary hemodynamics are uniformly associated with increased 5-year TVF rates. Nonrevascularized vessels with discordant FFR and CFR are associated with 5-year event rates that are equivalent to those of vessels that undergo revascularization, whereas vessels with combined low FFR and CFR exhibit event rates that are significantly higher than after revascularization. (Inclusive Invasive Physiological Assessment in Angina Syndromes Registry [ILIAS Registry]; NCT04485234)

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1047-1056
Number of pages10
JournalJACC. Cardiovascular interventions
Volume15
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 23 May 2022

Keywords

  • coronary flow reserve
  • fractional flow reserve
  • percutaneous coronary intervention

Cite this