| 1. |
- Andell, Pontus, et al.
(författare)
-
Reclassification of Treatment Strategy With Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve : A Substudy From the iFR-SWEDEHEART Trial
- 2018
-
Ingår i: JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. - : Elsevier BV. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 11:20, s. 2084-2094
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Christiansen, Evald H, et al.
(författare)
-
Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - : Massachussetts Medical Society. - 1533-4406 .- 0028-4793. ; 376:19, s. 1813-1823
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is an index used to assess the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been found to have similar diagnostic accuracy. However, studies of clinical outcomes associated with the use of iFR are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse cardiac events.We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2037 participants with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of coronary-artery stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR. The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure.A primary end-point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) in the iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 2.8; P=0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58; P=0.53); the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points. The results were similar among major subgroups. The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfort during the procedure.Among patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. (Funded by Philips Volcano; iFR SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02166736 .).
|
|
| 3. |
- Escaned, Javier, et al.
(författare)
-
Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes
- 2018
-
Ingår i: JACC. - : Elsevier. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 11:15, s. 1437-1449
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
| 4. |
- Götberg, Matthias, et al.
(författare)
-
Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve guided intervention (iFR-SWEDEHEART) : Rationale and design of a multicenter, prospective, registry-based randomized clinical trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Mosby-Elsevier. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 170:5, s. 945-950
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a new hemodynamic resting index for assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity. iFR uses high frequency sampling to calculate a gradient across a coronary lesion during a period of diastole. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) and found to have an overall classification agreement of 80% to 85%. Whether the level of disagreement is clinically relevant is unknown. Clinical outcome data on iFR are scarce. This study is a registry-based randomized clinical trial, which is a novel strategy using health quality registries as on-line platforms for randomization, case record forms, and follow-up.Design/Methods: iFR-SWEDEHEART is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical open-label clinical trial. Two thousand patients with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome and an indication for physiology-guided assessment of one or more coronary stenoses will be randomized 1: 1 to either iFR- or FFR-guided intervention. The randomization will be conducted online in the Swedish web-based system for enhancement and development of evidence-based care in heart disease evaluated according to recommended therapies (SWEDEHEART) registry. The trial has a non-inferiority design, with a primary combined end point of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization at 12 months. End points will be identified through national registries and undergo central blind adjudication to ensure data quality.Discussion: The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial is an registry-based randomized clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the diagnostic method iFR compared to FFR.
|
|
