Classification performance of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve in a clinical population of intermediate coronary stenoses: results of the ADVISE registry
- PMID: 22917666
- DOI: 10.4244/EIJV9I1A14
Classification performance of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve in a clinical population of intermediate coronary stenoses: results of the ADVISE registry
Abstract
Aims: To evaluate the classification agreement between instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with angiographic intermediate coronary stenoses.
Methods and results: Three hundred and twelve patients (339 stenoses) with angiographically intermediate stenoses were included in this international clinical registry. The iFR was calculated using fully automated algorithms. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to identify the iFR optimal cut-point corresponding to FFR 0.8. The classification agreement of coronary stenoses as significant or non-significant was established between iFR and FFR and between repeated FFR measurements for each 0.05 quantile of FFR values, from 0.2 to 1. Close agreement was observed between iFR and FFR (area under ROC curve= 86%). The optimal iFR cut-off (for an FFR of 0.80) was 0.89. After adjustment for the intrinsic variability of FFR, the classification agreement (accuracy) between iFR and FFR was 94%. Amongst the stenoses classified as non-significant by iFR (>0.89) and as significant by FFR (≤0.8), 81% had associated FFR values located within the FFR "grey-zone" (0.75-0.8) and 41% within the 0.79-0.80 FFR range.
Conclusions: In a population of intermediate coronary stenoses, the classification agreement between iFR and FFR is excellent and similar to that of repeated FFR measurements in the same sample. Vasodilator-independent assessment of intermediate stenosis seems applicable and may foster adoption of coronary physiology in the catheterisation laboratory.
Comment in
-
The great iFR vs. FFR debate: why sometimes "the wait and see approach" is the best tactic as the best pragmatic solution will always emerge and become established.EuroIntervention. 2013 May 20;9(1):11-3. doi: 10.4244/EIJV9I1A1. EuroIntervention. 2013. PMID: 23685289 No abstract available.
-
Lesion distribution and intrinsic variability: the challenge to beat the gold standard.EuroIntervention. 2013 May 20;9(1):166-7. doi: 10.4244/EIJV9I1A25. EuroIntervention. 2013. PMID: 23685307 No abstract available.
-
Challenging the need for hyperaemia.EuroIntervention. 2013 May 20;9(1):167-8. EuroIntervention. 2013. PMID: 23828955 No abstract available.
-
Mislabelled table entries in ADVISE Registry by Petraco and colleagues.EuroIntervention. 2013 Oct;9(6):769-70. doi: 10.4244/EIJV9I6A125. EuroIntervention. 2013. PMID: 24169141 No abstract available.
-
How high can "accuracy" be for iFR (or IVUS, or SPECT, or OCT...) if using fractional flow reserve as the gold standard?EuroIntervention. 2013 Oct;9(6):770-2. EuroIntervention. 2013. PMID: 24344413 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources