Revascularization decisions in patients with stable angina and intermediate lesions: results of the second International Survey on Interventional Strategy (ISIS-2)

Abstract

Background ISIS-1 survey (conducted in 2012–2013) demonstrated a significant disconnect between guideline recommendations on invasive functional and imaging assessment of coronary stenosis severity and effective intention to adoption in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). Ever since, more evidences and new indexes/tools have become available, supposedly resulting into a simplified adoption. Therefore, six years later the second survey was repeated (ISIS-2) with the aim to evaluate a possible evolution in the intended adoption of invasive diagnostic tools. Methods ISIS-2 was conducted via a web-based platform from June to December 2019. Here, five complete angiograms were provided, presenting only focal intermediate stenoses. FFR and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) values were known and kept concealed to the participants. Estimation of stenosis significance was asked for each lesion. In case of uncertainty, the most appropriate adjunctive invasive diagnostic method among QCA, intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, or invasive functional test (i.e. with FFR or a non-hyperemic index) was to be selected. Primary endpoint of the study was the rate of requested adjunctive functional or imaging assessment, as indicated by guideline recommendations. Secondary endpoint was the rate and accuracy of purely angiography-based decisions. Results A total of 411 participants performed 3749 lesion evaluations in ISIS-2: 2237 (60%) decisions were taken solely on angiogram and expressed no need for further evaluation with adjunctive tools. This rate of angiographic reliance was significantly reduced in ISIS-2 as compared with ISIS-1 (3139 [71%]; p<0.001). Here the decision (significant or non-significant) was discordant with the known functional significance in 870 (39%) cases, markedly less as in ISIS-1 (1459, 46%; p<0.001). In ISIS-2, participants expressed the need for either invasive functional assessment or intravascular imaging in 1110 (29%) and 379 (11%) cases, respectively. These rates were significantly higher as compared with ISIS-1 (928 [21%]; p<0.001 and 354 [8%]; p<0.001, respectively). Conclusions ISIS-2 survey suggests an evolving pattern over 6 years in the intention to integrate coronary angiography with invasive coronary physiology and imaging testing in patients with CCS. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Unrestricted grant from Abbott Medical

Graft patency after FFR-guided versus angiography-guided coronary artery bypass grafting: the GRAFFITI trial

“…On the other hand, the major advantage of invasive functional assessment, i.e., FFR, is its higher spatial resolution and its capability to interrogate the functional relevance of every single stenosis in isolation 13 . Considering the marked mismatch between the angiographic appearance and the true functional relevance of a coronary stenosis, namely the 50% DS conventional angiographic cut-off, this can result in a functional misinterpretation and potential "mistreatment" in at least one third of all cases, which is of the utmost clinical importance especially in multivessel disease patients [14][15][16][17][18] .…”

Quantitative flow ratio—Meta‐analysis and systematic review

“…Moreover, poor diagnosis accuracy of coronary angiography has been demonstrated with less than one‐third of the patients with intermediate lesions by angiography presenting ischemia according to FFR 3,5 . Despite the strong evidence supporting the use of FFR, its adoption is not globally extended 6 and most of interventional cardiologists still base the revascularization strategy solely upon the angiographic findings 7 . The reasons are multifactorial but probably it is conditioned by the need for advancing a wire—currently far from presenting good navigability—within a coronary artery, the risks of adenosine administration and the time investment 7 …”

Physiologic assessment of moderate coronary lesions: a step towards complete revascularization in coronary artery bypass grafting

“…In general, underutilization of coronary physiologic assessment is prevalent despite its endorsement from randomized clinical trials and guidelines. Overall, stenosis severity is perhaps still based on visual assessment about 70% of the time, resulting in discordance with FFR in almost 50% of cases (35). Although more experience with FFR correlates with higher utilization, the concordant decision rate based on either angiography or FFR still lies below 60% (35).…”