Comparison of Different Diastolic Resting Indexes to iFR: Are They All Equal?
Marcel Van't Veer, Nico H J Pijls, Barry Hennigan, Stuart Watkins, Ziad A Ali, Bernard De Bruyne, Frederik M Zimmermann, Lokien X van Nunen, Emanuele Barbato, Colin Berry, Keith G Oldroyd, Marcel Van't Veer, Nico H J Pijls, Barry Hennigan, Stuart Watkins, Ziad A Ali, Bernard De Bruyne, Frederik M Zimmermann, Lokien X van Nunen, Emanuele Barbato, Colin Berry, Keith G Oldroyd
Abstract
Background: Pressure measurement for the duration of the wave-free period (WFP) is considered essential for resting-state physiological assessment of coronary stenosis severity using the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR).
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare other diastolic resting indexes to iFR.
Methods: In the population of the VERIFY2 (Pd/Pa vs iFR in an Unselected Population Referred for Invasive Angiography) study, iFR calculated by proprietary software (Volcano Harvest, Volcano Corporation, Rancho Cordova, California) was compared with the ratio of resting distal coronary pressure and aortic pressure during the complete duration of diastole (dPR), 25% to 75% of diastole (dPR25-75), and midpoint of diastole (dPRmid), along with Matlab calculated iFR (iFRmatlab) and iFR-like indexes shortening the length of the WFP by 50 and 100 ms (iFR-50ms and iFR-100ms), respectively. Mutual differences, Spearman correlations, area under the curve values from receiver-operating characteristic analyses, and diagnostic performance with respect to iFR and fractional flow reserve (FFR) were calculated for all indexes.
Results: Median iFR in 197 patients with 257 vessels was 0.91 with an interquartile range of 0.87 to 0.95. The mutual differences (± SD) with iFR were 0.006 ± 0.011 (dPR), 0.001 ± 0.007 (dPR25-75), 0.001 ± 0.008 (dPRmid), 0.005 ± 0.009 (iFRmatlab), 0.003 ± 0.008 (iFR-50ms), and 0.001 ± 0.009 (iFR-100ms). Correlations for all indexes with iFR were >0.99 (p < 0.001 for all). Area under the curve values for predicting iFR were >0.99 for all indexes as well. Diagnostic accuracy compared with FFR was 76% to 77% for all indexes including iFR.
Conclusions: All diastolic resting indexes tested were identical to iFR, both numerically and with respect to their agreement with FFR. A numerically equal value to iFR can be determined without restriction to the WFP. Cutoff values, guidelines, and clinical recommendations for iFR can therefore be extended to these other indexes. (Pd/Pa vs iFR in an Unselected Population Referred for Invasive Angiography [VERIFY2]; NCT02377310).
Keywords: FFR; coronary physiology; coronary pressure measurements; iFR; resting indexes; wave-free period.
Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Source: PubMed