BACKGROUNDCoronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODSWe randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTSAt 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, −0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P = 0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONSCoronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. ( Use of Instantaneous Wave-free R atio in PCI F or the past 20 years, physiological measurements obtained during invasive procedures have been used to guide coronary revascularization. Pioneering work supported the use of flow measurements to make safe decisions about revascularization, 1,2 but this approach was soon superseded by the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR), which measures pressure as a surrogate of flow to estimate the severity of stenosis. 3-5 FFR was successful largely because of its technical simplicity and because clinical trials showed that it was associated with improved clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). 6,7 Consequently, FFR is now included in the appropriate-use criteria for coronary angiography and in the American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association-European Society of Cardiology guidelines; despite these recommendations, its adoption remains limited. [8][9][10] FFR must be measured during maximal hyperemia, which is typically induced with the administration of a potent intravenous or intracoronary vasodilator, such as adenosine. 11 Several studies have...

Aims The 2019 report from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Atlas provides a contemporary analysis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) statistics across 56 member countries, with particular emphasis on international inequalities in disease burden and healthcare delivery together with estimates of progress towards meeting 2025 World Health Organization (WHO) non-communicable disease targets. Methods and results In this report, contemporary CVD statistics are presented for member countries of the ESC. The statistics are drawn from the ESC Atlas which is a repository of CVD data from a variety of sources including the WHO, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and the World Bank. The Atlas also includes novel ESC sponsored data on human and capital infrastructure and cardiovascular healthcare delivery obtained by annual survey of the national societies of ESC member countries. Across ESC member countries, the prevalence of obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) and diabetes has increased two- to three-fold during the last 30 years making the WHO 2025 target to halt rises in these risk factors unlikely to be achieved. More encouraging have been variable declines in hypertension, smoking, and alcohol consumption but on current trends only the reduction in smoking from 28% to 21% during the last 20 years appears sufficient for the WHO target to be achieved. The median age-standardized prevalence of major risk factors was higher in middle-income compared with high-income ESC member countries for hypertension {23.8% [interquartile range (IQR) 22.5–23.1%] vs. 15.7% (IQR 14.5–21.1%)}, diabetes [7.7% (IQR 7.1–10.1%) vs. 5.6% (IQR 4.8–7.0%)], and among males smoking [43.8% (IQR 37.4–48.0%) vs. 26.0% (IQR 20.9–31.7%)] although among females smoking was less common in middle-income countries [8.7% (IQR 3.0–10.8) vs. 16.7% (IQR 13.9–19.7%)]. There were associated inequalities in disease burden with disability-adjusted life years per 100 000 people due to CVD over three times as high in middle-income [7160 (IQR 5655–8115)] compared with high-income [2235 (IQR 1896–3602)] countries. Cardiovascular disease mortality was also higher in middle-income countries where it accounted for a greater proportion of potential years of life lost compared with high-income countries in both females (43% vs. 28%) and males (39% vs. 28%). Despite the inequalities in disease burden across ESC member countries, survey data from the National Cardiac Societies of the ESC showed that middle-income member countries remain severely under-resourced compared with high-income countries in terms of cardiological person-power and technological infrastructure. Under-resourcing in middle-income countries is associated with a severe procedural deficit compared with high-income countries in terms of coronary intervention, device implantation and cardiac surgical procedures. Conclusion A seemingly inexorable rise in the prevalence of obesity and diabetes currently provides the greatest challenge to achieving further reductions in CVD burden across ESC member countries. Additional challenges are provided by inequalities in disease burden that now require intensification of policy initiatives in order to reduce population risk and prioritize cardiovascular healthcare delivery, particularly in the middle-income countries of the ESC where need is greatest.

cFFR provides diagnostic performance superior to that of Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR. For clinical scenarios or health care systems in which adenosine is contraindicated or prohibitively expensive, cFFR offers a universal technique to simplify invasive coronary physiological assessments. Yet FFR remains the reference standard for diagnostic certainty as even cFFR reached only ∼85% agreement.

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.

Objectives To identify clinical, angiographic and hemodynamic predictors of discordance between instantaneous wave‐free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR). Background The iFR was found to be non‐inferior to the gold‐standard FFR for guiding coronary revascularization, although it is discordant with FFR in 20% of cases. A better understanding of the causes of discordance may enhance application of these indices. Methods Both FFR and iFR were measured in the prospective multicenter CONTRAST study. Clinical, angiographic and hemodynamic variables were compared between patients with concordant values of FFR and iFR (cutoff ≤0.80 and ≤0.89, respectively). Results Out of the 587 patients included, in 466 patients (79.4%) FFR and iFR agreed: both negative, n = 244 (41.6%), or positive, n = 222 (37.8%). Compared with FFR, iFR was negative discordant (FFR+/iFR‐) in 69 (11.8%) patients and positive discordant (FFR‐/iFR+) in 52 (8.9%) patients. On multivariate regression, stenosis location (left main or proximal left anterior descending) (OR: 3.30[1.68;6.47]), more severe stenosis (OR: 1.77[1.35;2.30]), younger age (OR: 0.93[0.90;0.97]), and slower heart rate (OR: 0.59[0.42;0.75]) were predictors of a negative discordant iFR. Absence of a beta‐blocker (OR: 0.41[0.22;0.78]), older age (OR: 1.04[1.00;1.07]), and less severe stenosis (OR: 0.69[0.53;0.89]) were predictors of a positive discordant iFR. Conclusions During iFR acquisition, stenosis location, stenosis degree, heart rate, age and use of beta blockers influence concordance with FFR and should be taken into account when interpreting iFR.

Acute iFR evaluation appeared valid for ruling out significant nonculprit stenoses in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The time interval from acute to follow-up iFR influenced classification agreement, suggesting that inherent physiological disarrangements during STEMI may contribute to classification disagreement.

No abstract

cFFR is accurate in predicting the functional significance of coronary stenosis. This could allow limiting the use of adenosine to obtain FFR to a minority of stenoses with considerable savings of time and costs.