Fractional Flow Reserve/Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Discordance in Angiographically Intermediate Coronary Stenoses An Analysis Using Doppler-Derived Coronary Flow Measurements

Christopher M. Cook, Allen Jeremias, Ricardo Petraco, Sayan Sen, Sukhjinder Nijjer, Matthew J. Shun-Shin, Yousif Ahmad, Guus de Waard, Tim van de Hoef, Mauro Echavarria-Pinto, Martijn van Lavieren, Rasha Al Lamee, Yuetsu Kikuta, Yasutsugu Shiono, Ashesh Buch, Martijn Meuwissen, Ibrahim Danad, Paul Knaapen, Akiko Maehara, Bon-Kwon KooGary S. Mintz, Javier Escaned, Gregg W. Stone, Darrel P. Francis, Jamil Mayet, Jan J. Piek, Niels van Royen, Justin E. Davies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

99 Citations (Scopus)


The study sought to determine the coronary flow characteristics of angiographically intermediate stenoses classified as discordant by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). Discordance between FFR and iFR occurs in up to 20% of cases. No comparisons have been reported between the coronary flow characteristics of FFR/iFR discordant and angiographically unobstructed vessels. Baseline and hyperemic coronary flow velocity and coronary flow reserve (CFR) were compared across 5 vessel groups: FFR+/iFR+ (108 vessels, n = 91), FFR-/iFR+ (28 vessels, n = 24), FFR+/iFR- (22 vessels, n = 22), FFR-/iFR- (208 vessels, n = 154), and an unobstructed vessel group (201 vessels, n = 153), in a post hoc analysis of the largest combined pressure and Doppler flow velocity registry (IDEAL [Iberian-Dutch-English] collaborators study). FFR disagreed with iFR in 14% (50 of 366). Baseline flow velocity was similar across all 5 vessel groups, including the unobstructed vessel group (p = 0.34 for variance). In FFR+/iFR- discordants, hyperemic flow velocity and CFR were similar to both FFR-/iFR- and unobstructed groups; 37.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 26.1 to 50.4) cm/s vs. 40.0 [IQR: 29.7 to 52.3] cm/s and 42.2 [IQR: 33.8 to 53.2] cm/s and CFR 2.36 [IQR: 1.93 to 2.81] vs. 2.41 [IQR: 1.84 to 2.94] and 2.50 [IQR: 2.11 to 3.17], respectively (p > 0.05 for all). In FFR-/iFR+ discordants, hyperemic flow velocity, and CFR were similar to the FFR+/iFR+ group; 28.2 (IQR: 20.5 to 39.7) cm/s versus 23.5 (IQR: 16.4 to 34.9) cm/s and CFR 1.44 (IQR: 1.29 to 1.85) versus 1.39 (IQR: 1.06 to 1.88), respectively (p > 0.05 for all). FFR/iFR disagreement was explained by differences in hyperemic coronary flow velocity. Furthermore, coronary stenoses classified as FFR+/iFR- demonstrated similar coronary flow characteristics to angiographically unobstructed vessels
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2514-2524
JournalJACC Cardiovascular Interventions
Issue number24
Publication statusPublished - 26 Dec 2017


  • CFR
  • FFR
  • coronary flow reserve
  • coronary physiology
  • fractional flow reserve
  • iFR
  • instantaneous wave-free ratio

Cite this