Abstract
Background
Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) has been recently introduced as an adenosine free alternative for fractional flow reserve (FFR) to assess the functional significance of epicardial coronary stenosis. Little is known, however, regarding the repeatability and stability of iFR in comparison with FFR.
Purpose
The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of iFR and compare it to that of FFR.
Methods
Patients with stable coronary artery disease who underwent physiological assessment twice within 90 days were enrolled. Repeated measurements were performed at diagnostic and therapeutic catheterization in about 70% of studied population. The remaining patients were measured twice for non-culprit lesion assessment at primary PCI and subsequent non-culprit and ischemia-documented lesion PCI. The calculation of iFRmatlab from DICOM pressure tracing data of resting state was performed using a fully automated off-line software algorithm in a blind fashion. FFR values were also measured by a fully automated algorithm in the same core laboratory by using hyperemic pressure tracing data. The repeatability of the two indices were evaluated and compared. The inter-rater agreement between iFRmatlab and FFR values of two measurements was assessed by κ coefficient. The pressure rate product during each assessment was also documented and evaluated.
Results
Ninety-three lesions from 92 patients were included in the study. The time interval between the two assessments was 38.4±19.0 days. iFRmatlab and FFR both showed significant correlation within the two assessments (iFRmatlab: r=0.75, 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.83; mean difference, −0.006 [−0.18 to −0.01], FFR: r=0.86, 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 0.90; mean difference, 0.004 [−0.07 to 0.03]). The inter-rater agreement of functional ischemia for iFRmatlab and FFR were κ=0.449 and κ=0.732, respectively. Although the prevalence of functional ischemia during the first and second assessment were consistent for both indices (iFRmatlab: 70.0%/67.7%, FFR: 86.0%/ 86.0%), significant difference was observed in the prevalence of clinical disagreement on the diagnosis of functional ischemia (FFR=0.80, iFR=0.89 used as cut-off values, respectively) between the first and second assessment among the two indices (iFRmatlab: 6.5%, FFR: 23.7%, p=0.002). iFRmatlab was significantly associated with pressure rate product during the examination compared to FFR (iFRmatlab: r= −0.25, 95% confidence interval, −0.43 to −0.04, P=0.018, FFR: r=−0.08, 95% confidence interval, −0.28 to −0.13, p=0.467).
Conclusion
Our results suggested that iFRmatlab showed lower repeatability and reliability for decision making compared to FFR. The instability of iFRmatlab potentially derives at least in part from its association with heart rate and blood pressure product.
Transluminal Attenuation Gradient on 320-Detector Row CT (TAG320) Compared to Contrast Opacification Mean Difference (CO-Mean-Difference) for Detection of Functionally Significant Stenosis Assessed by Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR)
