Discordance between quantitative coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve or intravascular ultrasound: a substudy of the FLAVOUR trial

Abstract

Abstract Background Discrepancies between quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) are often observed in coronary lesions with intermediate stenosis. Objectives We investigated the impact of physiology- or intracoronary imaging-directed revascularization strategies on clinical outcomes in patients with discordant coronary lesions between QCA and FFR or IVUS. Methods This study was a post hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study, an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open-label, multinational trial performed at 18 sites in Korea and China. In the FLAVOUR study, 200 patients with ≥60% diameter stenosis (DS) deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to FFR > 0.8 (n=141) or a minimal lumen area > 3 mm2 or 3-4 mm2 with a plaque burden <70% on IVUS whereas 351 patients with <60% DS performed PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) or positive IVUS (n=233) results. The primary outcome was a patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO), a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization. Results The incidence of discordance was 28.1% in the FFR group and 32.4% in the IVUS group. At 24 months, among patients with ≥60% DS, the incidence of POCO was similar between FFR-guided and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (4.4% vs. 3.4%, p=0.757). Among patients with <60% DS, FFR-directed or IVUS-directed PCI did not differ in the POCO incidence (5.2% vs. 2.6%, p=0.207). However, FFR-guided PCI showed a higher incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction than IVUS-guided PCI in <60% DS lesions (2.6% vs. 0.0%, p=0.014). Conclusions In patients with discordant intermediate stenosis between QCA and FFR or IVUS, physiology- and imaging-directed revascularization strategies are comparable concerning POCO at 24 months.