Background: The majority of randomized controlled trials of revascularization decision-making excludes left main coronary artery disease (LMD). Therefore, contemporary clinical outcomes of patients with stable coronary artery disease and LMD with proven ischemia remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of physiologically significant LMD according to the treatment strategies of revascularization versus revascularization deferral. Methods: In this international multicenter registry of stable LMD interrogated with the instantaneous wave-free ratio, patients with physiologically significant ischemia (instantaneous wave-free ratio ≤0.89) were analyzed according to the coronary revascularization (n=151) versus revascularization deferral (n=74). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. The secondary end points were as follows: cardiac death or spontaneous LMD-related myocardial infarction; and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. Results: At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (14.9%) in the revascularized group and 21 patients (28.4%) in the deferred group (hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.20–0.89]; P =0.023). For the secondary end points, cardiac death or LMD-related myocardial infarction occurred significantly less frequently in the revascularized group (0.0% versus 8.1%; P =0.004). The rate of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem was also significantly lower in the revascularized group (5.4% versus 17.6%; hazard ratio, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.056–0.70]; P =0.012). Conclusions: In patients who underwent revascularization for stable coronary artery disease and physiologically significant LMD determined by instantaneous wave-free ratio, the long-term clinical outcomes were significantly improved as compared with those in whom revascularization was deferred.

Background: The clinical value of residual quantitative flow ratio (rQFR), a novel function of QFR technique, is unknown.Aim: We investigated the clinical value of rQFR, aimed to predict residual ischemia after virtual percutaneous coronary intervention (vPCI).Methods: This is a substudy of the COE-PERSPECTIVE registry, which investigated the prognostic value of post-PCI fractional flow reserve (FFR). From pre-PCI angiograms, QFR and rQFR were analyzed and their diagnostic performance was assessed at blinded fashion using pre-PCI FFR and post-PCI FFR as reference, respectively. The prognostic value of rQFR after vPCI was assessed according to vessel-oriented composite outcome (VOCO) at 2 years.Results: We analyzed 274 patients (274 vessels) with FFR-based ischemic causing lesions (49%) from 555 screened patients. Pre-PCI QFR and FFR were 0.63 ± 0.10 and 0.66 ± 0.11 (R = 0.756, p < 0.001). rQFR after vPCI and FFR after real PCI were 0.93 ± 0.06 and 0.86 ± 0.07 (R = 0.528, p < 0.001). The mean difference between rQFR and post-PCI FFR was 0.068 (95% limit of agreement: −0.05 to 0.19). Diagnostic performance of rQFR to predict residual ischemia after PCI was good (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.856 [0.804−0.909], p < 0.001). rQFR predicted well the incidence of 2year VOCO after index PCI (AUC: 0.712 [0.555−0.869], p = 0.041), being similar to that of actual post-PCI FFR (AUC: 0.691 [0.512−0.870], p = 0.061). rQFR ≤0.89 was associated with increased risk of 2-year VOCO (hazard ratio [HR]: 12.9 [2.32−71.3], p = 0.0035). This difference was mainly driven by a higher rate of target vessel revascularization ], p = 0.0051).

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) in left main (LM) coronary stenoses, using Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) as reference.Background: QFR has demonstrated a high accuracy in determining the functional relevance of coronary stenoses in non-LM. However, there is an important paucity of data regarding its diagnostic value in the specific anatomical subset of LM disease.Methods: This is a retrospective, observational, multicenter, international, and blinded study including patients with LM stenoses. Cases with significant ostial LM disease were excluded. QFR was calculated from conventional angiograms at blinded fashion with respect to FFR.Results: Sixty-seven patients with LM stenoses were analyzed. Overall, LM had intermediate severity, both from angiographic (diameter stenosis [%DS] 43.8 ± 11.1%) and functional perspective (FFR 0.756 ± 0.105). Mean QFR was 0.733 ± 0.159. Correlation between QFR and FFR was moderate (r = 0.590). Positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity and specificity were 85.4%, 64%, 85.4%, and 69.6% respectively. Classification agreement of QFR and FFR in terms of functional stenosis severity was 78.1%. Area under the receiver operating characteristics of QFR using FFR as reference was 0.82 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71−0.93], and significantly better than angiographic evaluation including %DS (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.45 [95% CI, 0.32−0.58], p < 0.001) and minimum lumen diameter (AUC 0.60 [95% CI, 0.47−0.74], p < 0.001).

There have been no studies comparing clinical outcomes of physiology-guided revascularization in patients with unprotected left main coronary disease (ULMD) between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes between PCI and CABG of patients with physiologically significant ULMD. From an international multicenter registry of ULMD patients interrogated with instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), we analyzed data from 151 patients (85 PCI vs. 66 CABG) who underwent revascularization according to the cutoff value of iFR ≤ 0.89. Propensity score matching was employed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The secondary endpoints were the individual components of the primary endpoint. Mean age was 66.6 (± 9.2) years, 79.2% male. Mean SYNTAX score was 22.6 (± 8.4) and median iFR was 0.83 (IQR 0.74–0.87). After performing propensity score matching analysis, 48 patients treated with CABG were matched to those who underwent PCI. At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 8.3% in PCI group and 20.8% in CABG group, respectively (HR 3.80; 95% CI 1.04–13.9; p = 0.043). There was no difference in each component of the primary event (p > 0.05 for all). Within the present study, iFR-guided PCI was associated with lower cardiovascular events rate in patients with ULMD and intermediate SYNTAX score, as compared to CABG. Graphical abstract State-of-the-art PCI vs. CABG for ULMD. Study design and primary endpoint in patients with physiologically significant ULMD. MACE was defined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. The blue line denotes the PCI arm, and the red line denotes the CABG arm. PCI was associated with significantly lower risk of MACE than CABG. CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; iFR: instantaneous wave-free ratio; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; ULMD: unprotected left main coronary artery disease.