| 1. |
- Ahmad, Yousif, et al.
(author)
-
Determining the Predominant Lesion in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Stenoses : A Multicenter Study Using Intracoronary Pressure and Flow
- 2019
-
In: Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions. - 1941-7632. ; 12:12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) often have coronary artery disease. Both the aortic valve and the coronary disease influence the blood flow to the myocardium and its ability to respond to stress; leading to exertional symptoms. In this study, we aim to quantify the effect of severe AS on the coronary microcirculation and determine if this is influenced by any concomitant coronary disease. We then compare this to the effect of coronary stenoses on the coronary microcirculation. METHODS: Group 1: 55 patients with severe AS and intermediate coronary stenoses treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) were included. Group 2: 85 patients with intermediate coronary stenoses and no AS treated with percutaneous coronary intervention were included. Coronary pressure and flow were measured at rest and during hyperemia in both groups, before and after TAVI (group 1) and before and after percutaneous coronary intervention (group 2). RESULTS: Microvascular resistance over the wave-free period of diastole increased significantly post-TAVI (pre-TAVI, 2.71±1.4 mm Hg·cm·s-1 versus post-TAVI 3.04±1.6 mm Hg·cm·s-1 [P=0.03]). Microvascular reserve over the wave-free period of diastole significantly improved post-TAVI (pre-TAVI 1.88±1.0 versus post-TAVI 2.09±0.8 [P=0.003]); this was independent of the severity of the underlying coronary stenosis. The change in microvascular resistance post-TAVI was equivalent to that produced by stenting a coronary lesion with an instantaneous wave-free ratio of ≤0.74. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI improves microcirculatory function regardless of the severity of underlying coronary disease. TAVI for severe AS produces a coronary hemodynamic improvement equivalent to the hemodynamic benefit of stenting coronary stenoses with instantaneous wave-free ratio values <0.74. Future trials of physiology-guided revascularization in severe AS may consider using this value to guide treatment of concomitant coronary artery disease.
|
|
| 2. |
- Akhtar, Zubair, et al.
(author)
-
Optimal timing of influenza vaccination among patients with acute myocardial infarction - Findings from the IAMI trial
- 2023
-
In: Vaccine. - : Elsevier. - 0264-410X .- 1873-2518. ; 41:48, s. 7159-7165
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Influenza vaccination reduces the risk of adverse cardiovascular events. The IAMI trial randomly assigned 2571 patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to receive influenza vaccine or saline placebo during their index hospital admission. It was conducted at 30 centers in 8 countries from October 1, 2016 to March 1, 2020. In this post-hoc exploratory sub-study, we compare the trial outcomes in patients receiving early season vaccination (n = 1188) and late season vaccination (n = 1344). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stent thrombosis at 12 months. The cumulative incidence of the primary and key secondary endpoints by randomized treatment and early or late vaccination was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. In the early vaccinated group, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 36 participants (6.0%) assigned to influenza vaccine and 49 (8.4%) assigned to placebo (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.07), compared to 31 participants (4.7%) assigned to influenza vaccine and 42 (6.2%) assigned to placebo (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.18) in the late vaccinated group (P = 0.848 for interaction on HR scale at 1 year). We observed similar estimates for the key secondary endpoints of all-cause death and CV death. There was no statistically significant difference in vaccine effectiveness against adverse cardiovascular events by timing of vaccination. The effect of vaccination on all-cause death at one year was more pronounced in the group receiving early vaccination (HR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.86) compared late vaccination group (HR 0.75; 35% CI, 0.40 to 1.40) but there was no statistically significant difference between these groups (Interaction P = 0.335). In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence from the trial to establish whether there is a difference in efficacy between early and late vaccination but regardless of vaccination timing we strongly recommend influenza vaccination in all patients with cardiovascular diseases.
|
|
| 3. |
- Andell, Pontus, et al.
(author)
-
Reclassification of Treatment Strategy With Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve : A Substudy From the iFR-SWEDEHEART Trial
- 2018
-
In: JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. - : Elsevier BV. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 11:20, s. 2084-2094
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Andersen, Birgitte Krogsgaard, et al.
(author)
-
Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: design and rationale of the randomised FAVOR III Europe Japan trial.
- 2023
-
In: EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. - 1969-6213.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) based on invasive coronary angiographic images. Calculating QFR is less invasive than measuring FFR and may be associated with lower costs. Current evidence supports the call for an adequately powered randomised comparison of QFR and FFR for the evaluation of intermediate coronary stenosis. The aim of the FAVOR III Europe Japan trial is to investigate if a QFR-based diagnostic strategy yields a non-inferior 12-month clinical outcome compared with a standard FFR-guided strategy in the evaluation of patients with intermediary coronary stenosis. FAVOR III Europe Japan is an investigator-initiated, randomised, clinical outcome, non-inferiority trial scheduled to randomise 2,000 patients with either 1) stable angina pectoris and intermediate coronary stenosis, or 2) indications for functional assessment of at least 1 non-culprit lesion after acute myocardial infarction. Up to 40 international centres will randomise patients to either a QFR-based or a standard FFR-based diagnostic strategy. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events is a composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, and any unplanned coronary revascularisation at 12 months. QFR could emerge as an adenosine- and wire-free alternative to FFR, making the functional evaluation of intermediary coronary stenosis less invasive and more cost-effective.
|
|
| 5. |
- Berntorp, Karolina, et al.
(author)
-
Clinical Outcome of Revascularization Deferral With Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve : A 5-Year Follow-Up Substudy From the iFR-SWEDEHEART Trial
- 2023
-
In: Journal of the American Heart Association. - 2047-9980. ; 12:3, s. 028423-028423
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Although physiology-based assessment of coronary artery stenosis using instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) are established methods of guiding coronary revascularization, its clinical outcome in long-term deferral needs further evaluation, especially with acute coronary syndrome as a clinical presentation. The aim was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcome of deferral of revascularization based on iFR or FFR. Methods and Results This is a substudy of the iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trial, where patients deferred from revascularization from each study arm were selected. Nine hundred eight patients deferred from coronary revascularization with iFR (n=473) and FFR (n=435) were followed for 5 years. The national quality registry, SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies), was used for patient data collection and clinical follow-up. The end point was major adverse cardiac events and their individual components all-cause death, cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. No significant difference was found in major adverse cardiac events (iFR 18.6% versus FFR 16.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.79-1.48]; P=0.63) or their individual components. Conclusions No differences in clinical outcomes after 5-year follow-up were noted when comparing iFR versus FFR as methods for deferral of coronary revascularization in patients presenting with stable angina pectoris and acute coronary syndrome. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02166736.
|
|
| 6. |
- Berntorp, Karolina, et al.
(author)
-
Instantaneous wave-free ratio compared with fractional flow reserve in PCI : A cost-minimization analysis
- 2021
-
In: International Journal of Cardiology. - : Hindawi Publishing Corporation. - 0167-5273 .- 1874-1754. ; 344, s. 54-59
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Coronary physiology is a routine diagnostic tool when assessing whether coronary revascularization is indicated. The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial demonstrated similar clinical outcomes when using instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization. The objective of this analysis was to assess a cost-minimization analysis of iFR-guided compared with FFR-guided revascularization.METHODS: In this cost-minimization analysis we used a decision-tree model from a healthcare perspective with a time-horizon of one year to estimate the cost difference between iFR and FFR in a Nordic setting and a United States (US) setting. Treatment pathways and health care utilizations were constructed from the iFR-SWEDEHEART trial. Unit cost for revascularization and myocardial infarction in the Nordic setting and US setting were derived from the Nordic diagnosis-related group versus Medicare cost data. Unit cost of intravenous adenosine administration and cost per stent placed were based on the average costs from the enrolled centers in the iFR-SWEDEHEART trial. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the robustness of the result.RESULTS: The cost-minimization analysis demonstrated a cost saving per patient of $681 (95% CI: $641 - $723) in the Nordic setting and $1024 (95% CI: $934 - $1114) in the US setting, when using iFR-guided compared with FFR-guided revascularization. The results were not sensitive to changes in uncertain parameters or assumptions.CONCLUSIONS: IFR-guided revascularization is associated with significant savings in cost compared with FFR-guided revascularization.
|
|
| 7. |
- Christiansen, Evald H, et al.
(author)
-
Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI.
- 2017
-
In: The New England journal of medicine. - : Massachussetts Medical Society. - 1533-4406 .- 0028-4793. ; 376:19, s. 1813-1823
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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 .).
|
|
| 8. |
- Eftekhari, Ashkan, et al.
(author)
-
Instantaneous wave free ratio vs. fractional flow reserve and 5-year mortality: iFR SWEDEHEART and DEFINE FLAIR
- 2023
-
In: European Heart Journal. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 44:41, s. 4376-4384
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background and Aims Guidelines recommend revascularization of intermediate epicardial artery stenosis to be guided by evidence of ischaemia. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are equally recommended. Individual 5-year results of two major randomized trials comparing FFR with iFR-guided revascularization suggested increased all-cause mortality following iFR-guided revascularization. The aim of this study was a study-level meta-analysis of the 5-year outcome data in iFR-SWEDEHEART (NCT02166736) and DEFINE-FLAIR (NCT02053038).Methods Composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and its individual components [all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularisation] were analysed. Raw Kaplan-Meier estimates, numbers at risk, and number of events were extracted at 5-year follow-up and analysed using the ipdfc package (Stata version 18, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).Results In total, iFR and FFR-guided revascularization was performed in 2254 and 2257 patients, respectively. Revascularization was more often deferred in the iFR group [n = 1128 (50.0%)] vs. the FFR group [n = 1021 (45.2%); P = .001]. In the iFR-guided group, the number of deaths, MACE, unplanned revascularization, and MI was 188 (8.3%), 484 (21.5%), 235 (10.4%), and 123 (5.5%) vs. 143 (6.3%), 420 (18.6%), 241 (10.7%), and 123 (5.4%) in the FFR group. Hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] estimates for MACE were 1.18 [1.04; 1.34], all-cause mortality 1.34 [1.08; 1.67], unplanned revascularization 0.99 [0.83; 1.19], and MI 1.02 [0.80; 1.32].Conclusions Five-year all-cause mortality and MACE rates were increased with revascularization guided by iFR compared to FFR. Rates of unplanned revascularization and MI were equal in the two groups. Structured Graphical Abstract Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a non-hyperaemic pressure index measured in the wave-free period in diastole. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the ratio between mean aortic pressure (Pa) and distal coronary pressure (Pd) during hyperaemia. The increased rate of major adverse cardiovascular events is driven by the higher all-cause mortality in the iFR arm. The pooled analysis was conducted by digitalizing the Kaplan-Meier curves with the ipdfc package (Stata version 18, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.
|
|
| 9. |
- Escaned, Javier, et al.
(author)
-
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
-
In: JACC. - : Elsevier. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 11:15, s. 1437-1449
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 10. |
- Fröbert, Ole, 1964-, et al.
(author)
-
Clinical Impact of Influenza Vaccination after ST- and Non-ST-segment elevation Myocardial Infarction Insights from the IAMI trial
- 2023
-
In: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 255, s. 82-89
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination early after myocardial infarction (MI) improves prognosis but vaccine effectiveness may differ dependent on type of MI.METHODS: A total of 2571 participants were prospectively enrolled in the IAMI trial and randomly assigned to receive in-hospital inactivated influenza vaccine or saline placebo. The trial was conducted at 30 centers in 8 countries from October 1, 2016 to March 1, 2020. Here we report vaccine effectiveness in the 2467 participants with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI, n=1348) or non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI, n=1119). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, MI, or stent thrombosis at 12 months. Cumulative incidence of the primary and key secondary endpoints by randomized treatment and NSTEMI/STEMI was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment effects were evaluated with formal interaction testing to assess for effect modification.RESULTS: Baseline risk was higher in participants with NSTEMI. In the NSTEMI group the primary endpoint occurred in 6.5% of participants assigned to influenza vaccine and 10.5% assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), compared to 4.1% assigned to influenza vaccine and 4.5% assigned to placebo in the STEMI group (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.50, P=0.237 for interaction). Similar findings were seen for the key secondary endpoints of all-cause death and cardiovascular death. The Kaplan-Meier risk difference in all-cause death at 1 year was more pronounced in participants with NSTEMI (NSTEMI: HR, 0.47; 95% CI 0.28-0.80, STEMI: HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.43-1.70, interaction P=0.028).CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effect of influenza vaccination on adverse cardiovascular events may be enhanced in patients with NSTEMI compared to those with STEMI.
|
|
