The role of gender in resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) guided coronary revascularization

Abstract

BackgroundGender-based differences in clinical outcomes of patients undergoing fractional flow reserved (FFR) guided coronary revascularization is well documented. This study aimed to compare resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) values between men and women and whether this translated into difference in clinical outcomes in patients who underwent RFR-guided coronary revascularization. MethodsThis was a retrospective single-centre study of consecutive patients who underwent RFR-guided revascularization for coronary lesions with intermediate degree of stenosis. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization, and unstable angina requiring hospital admission at one year. ResultsIn 373 consecutive patients (510 lesions, 26% women) there was no statistically significant difference in RFR value between men and women (0.90 ± 10 versus 0.90 ± 11, P = 0.95). There was no statistically significant difference between men and women in the primary endpoint, even after adjustment to the imbalance between the two groups [3.7% vs. 3.0%; HR 1.43, 95% CI (0.46 to 4.43), P = 0.54]; or its individual components of death (1.1% vs 0.8%, P = 0.76), MI (1.9% vs 0.8%, P = 0.38) or unplanned revascularization, including unstable angina admissions (2.6% vs 2.3%, P = 0.82). The comparable clinical outcomes were consistent across all different subgroups, including clinical presentation, diabetes status, left ventricle systolic function, kidney function, and the interrogated coronary artery. ConclusionOur study suggests no significant gender-based difference in the value of RFR or 1-year clinical outcomes in patients undergoing resting physiology guided coronary revascularization.