P5619Comparison of different resting physiological indices: are diastolic pressure ratio and resting full-cycle ratio equal?

Abstract

Abstract Background Previous reports showed all diastolic resting indexes tested were virtually identical to the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). Although RFR has been also reported to be diagnostically equivalent to iFR, no comparisons have been reported about the prevalence and characteristics of discordance in diagnosis between diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and resting full-cycle ratio (RFR). Purpose This study sought to determine the coronary pressure characteristics of lesions classified as discordant between dPR and RFR in angiographically intermediate stenoses. Methods We recruited 532 patients with 668 intermediate (angiographically stenosis between 30% to 70% severity) coronary lesions undergoing FFR assessment and analyzed DICOM pressure tracings of resting state (dPR and RFR) using a fully automated off-line software algorithm in a blind fashion. Diagnostic performance of dPR and RFR was evaluated using FFR as a reference. Furthermore, we investigated similarity and difference between dPR and RFR. Results Median FFR was 0.81 with an interquartile range of 0.74 to 0.87. RFR was highly correlated to dPR (R2=0.94, p<0.001), with a mean bias of 0.012 (95% limits of agreement −0.008 to 0.031). The diagnostic performance of RFR versus dPR was diagnostic accuracy 95.4%, sensitivity 100.0%, specificity 91.6%, positive predictive value 90.6%, negative predictive value 100.0%). Using the binary cut-off of dPR ≤0.89 as a cut-off value, RFR showed near identical agreement according to ROC curve analysis (AUC: 0.996, 95% CI: 0.994–0.999, p<0.001). Although dPR and RFR demonstrated equivalent performance against FFR ≤0.8 (79.5% vs. 79.3% accuracy; p=0.960; area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.869 vs. 0.870; p=0.528), RFR disagreed with dPR in 4.6% (31 of 668). When all lesions (668 vessels) were divided into groups according to the concordance and discordance between dPR and RFR: RFR+/dPR+ (298 vessels, n=240), RFR+/dPR– (31 vessels, n=31 patients), RFR-/dPR- (339 vessels, n=259). There was no lesion showing RFR-/dPR+. The prevalence of ischemia was tended to be higher in lesions evaluated by RFR (49.3% vs 44.6%, P=0.100) when using FFR ≤0.80 as a reference standard. An overall significant difference in the prevalence of FFR ≤0.80 and the FFR values were detected among these 3 groups. Furthermore, pairwise comparison also revealed the prevalence of FFR >0.80 and the FFR values were significantly lower in RFR+/dPR– than in RFR-/dPR-, and significantly higher in RFR+/dPR– than in RFR+/dPR+. (P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively) Conclusion Significant difference in FFR values was observed according to dPR/RFR agreement and disagreement. Revascularization decision making might defer according to the resting index used. Compared with RFR, lesions might be more frequently deferred when dPR was used to assess physiological significance. Acknowledgement/Funding None