Hyperemic versus non-hyperemic indexes for coronary physiology assessment in patients with severe aortic stenosis

Abstract

PurposeRecent data suggests that fractional flow reserve (FFR) may underestimate intermediate coronary stenosis in the presence of severe aortic stenosis (AS), whereas instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) values may remain similar after treatment of AS, yet the evidence still lacks to use iFR as the reference. We aimed to compare FFR/iFR values in the AS setting. Materials and methodsThe functional significance of 416 coronary lesions in 221 patients with severe AS was investigated with iFR and FFR. ResultsThe diagnostic agreement between iFR and FFR has been tested, using the cut-off value of 0.89 for iFR and 0.80 for FFR. The mean diameter stenosis was 58.6 ​± ​13.4% with FFR of 0.85 ​± ​0.07 and iFR of 0.90 ​± ​0.04. FFR ≤0.80 was identified in 26.0% and iFR≤0.89 in 33.2% of interrogated vessels. Good agreement between iFR and FFR was confirmed (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0.83 [95%CI 0.79-0.85]). The overall diagnostic accuracy (AUC in ROC analysis) of FFR in detecting iFR≤0.89 was 0.997 (95%CI 0.986 to 1.000; p<0.001) and of iFR in detecting FFR≤0.80 was 0.995 (95%CI 0.983 to 0.999; p<0.001). The optimal cut-off value for FFR to detect iFR≤0.89 was 0.82 with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 97.1%, 98.9%, and 97.7%, respectively, and for IFR to detect FFR≤0.80 was 0.88 with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 99.1%, 95.8%, and 97.4%, respectively. ConclusionIn the presence of AS, FFR has good agreement with iFR. However, the optimal FFR/iFR threshold to identify iFR≤0.89/FFR≤0.80 may be different from the standard thresholds of ischemia.