Factors associated with discordance between fractional flow reserve and resting full-cycle ratio

Abstract

BackgroundResting full-cycle ratio (RFR), a non-hyperemic pressure ratio, is alternative to fractional flow reserve (FFR) for the evaluation of coronary artery stenoses. Although FFR and RFR results are often discordant using the cut-off values (0.80 and 0.89), factors associated with the discordance are unclear. The aim of this study was to explore factors related to the discordant results. MethodsWe performed FFR and RFR measurements in a total of 408 vessels with intermediate coronary artery stenosis in 277 patients. Positive FFR and RFR were defined based on the cut-off values of 0.80 and 0.89. The discordance was determined as positive FFR and negative RFR (FFR ≤0.80 and RFR >0.89) or negative FFR and positive RFR (FFR >0.80 and RFR ≤0.89). ResultsOverall, FFR and RFR were significantly correlated (r = 0.76, p < 0.001), while positive FFR and negative RFR and negative FFR and positive RFR were observed in 44 (10.8%) and 45 (11.0%) of 408 vessels, respectively. Smaller body surface area, diabetes, chronic kidney disease including hemodialysis, severe aortic stenosis, higher E/e', and lower left ventricular ejection fraction on echocardiography, and lower hemoglobin and higher brain natriuretic peptide levels were identified as factors associated with the negative FFR and positive RFR discordance. ConclusionsDiscordant results between FFR and RFR were often found in more than 20% of vessels with intermediate coronary stenosis. Clinical characteristics such as renal function, heart failure, and anemia may be considered in clinical decision-making when using FFR and RFR.