Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2022 May 3;11(9):e021490.
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.021490. Epub 2022 May 3.

Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Assessment of Lesion Hemodynamic Significance and Explanation of their Discrepancies. International, Multicenter and Prospective Trial: The FiGARO Study

Collaborators, Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Assessment of Lesion Hemodynamic Significance and Explanation of their Discrepancies. International, Multicenter and Prospective Trial: The FiGARO Study

Tomas Kovarnik et al. J Am Heart Assoc. .

Abstract

Background The FiGARO (FFR versus iFR in Assessment of Hemodynamic Lesion Significance, and an Explanation of Their Discrepancies) trial is a prospective registry searching for predictors of fractional flow reserve/instantaneous wave-free ratio (FFR/iFR) discrepancy. Methods and Results FFR/iFR were analyzed using a Verrata wire, and coronary flow reserve was analyzed using a Combomap machine (both Philips-Volcano). The risk polymorphisms for endothelial nitric oxide synthase and for heme oxygenase-1 were analyzed. In total, 1884 FFR/iFR measurements from 1564 patients were included. The FFR/iFR discrepancy occurred in 393 measurements (20.9%): FFRp (positive)/iFRn (negative) type (264 lesions, 14.0%) and FFRn/iFRp (129 lesions, 6.8%) type. Coronary flow reserve was measured in 343 lesions, correlating better with iFR (R=0.56, P<0.0001) than FFR (R=0.36, P<0.0001). The coronary flow reserve value in FFRp/iFRn lesions (2.24±0.7) was significantly higher compared with both FFRp/iFRp (1.39±0.36), and FFRn/iFRn lesions (1.8±0.64, P<0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis confirmed (1) sex, age, and lesion location in the right coronary artery as predictors for FFRp/iFRn discrepancy; and (2) hemoglobin level, smoking, and renal insufficiency as predictors for FFRn/iFRp discrepancy. The FFRn/iFRp type of discrepancy was significantly more frequent in patients with both risk types of polymorphisms (endothelial nitric oxide synthaser+heme oxygenase-1r): 8 patients (24.2%) compared with FFRp/iFRn type of discrepancy: 2 patients (5.9%), P=0.03. Conclusions Predictors for FFRp/iFRn discrepancy were sex, age, and location in the right coronary artery. Predictors for FFRn/iFRp were hemoglobin level, smoking, and renal insufficiency. The risk type of polymorphism in endothelial nitric oxide synthase and heme oxygenase-1 genes was more frequently found in patients with FFRn/iFRp type of discrepancy. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03033810.

Keywords: coronary flow reserve; fractional flow reserve; instantaneous wave‐free ratio.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. A 3‐dimensional image of the ENOS heme domains.
Left panel: the homodimeric structure, alongside heme (pink) and the structural zinc atom (grey). Right panel: the Glu298 (blue) and Asp298 (yellow) represent amino acid residues corresponding to the polymorphic change. ENOS indicates endothelial nitric oxide synthase.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Correlation between FFR and iFR values and histograms for FFR and iFR values.
FFR indicates fractional flow reserve; and iFR, instantaneous wave‐free ratio.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bland‐Altman plot of difference between FFR and iFR.
FFR indicates fractional flow reserve; and iFR, instantaneous wave‐free ratio.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Correlation between CFR and FFR, and between CFR and iFR.
CFR indicates coronary flow reserve; FFR, fractional flow reserve; and iFR, instantaneous wave‐free ratio.

Comment in

References

    1. Park S‐J, Kang S‐J, Ahn J‐M, Shim EB, Kim Y‐T, Yun S‐C, Song H, Lee J‐Y, Kim W‐J, Park D‐W, et al. Visual‐functional mismatch between coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. JACC. 2012;5:1029–1036. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.07.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Davies JE, Sen S, Dehbi H‐M, Al‐Lamee R, Petraco R, Nijjer SS, Bhindi R, Lehman SJ, Walters D, Sapontis J, et al. Use of the instantane‐ous wave‐free ratio or fractional flow reserve in PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1824–1834. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1700445 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Götberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir IJ, Sandhall L, Danielewicz M, Jakobsen L, Olsson S‐E, Öhagen P, Olsson H, Omerovic E, et al.; for the iFR‐SWEDEHEART Investigators . Instantaneous wave‐free ratio versus fractional flow reserve to guide PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1813–1823. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1616540 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jeremias A, Maehara A, Généreux P, Asrress KN, Berry C, De Bruyne B, Davies J, Escaned J, Fearon W, Gould L, et al. Multicenter core laboratory comparison of the instantaneous wave‐free ratio and resting PD/PA with fractional flow reserve: the RESOLVE study. JACC. 2014;63:1253–1261. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.09.060 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Daiber A, Xia N, Steven S, Oelze M, Hanf A, Kröller‐Schön S, Münzel T, Li H. New therapeutic implications of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) function/dysfunction in cardiovascular disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:E187. doi: 10.3390/ijms20010187 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources