Safety of Revascularization Deferral of Left Main Stenosis Based on Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Evaluation

Physiological Assessment with iFR prior to FFR Measurement in Left Main Disease

Despite guideline-based recommendation of the interchangeable use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization decision-making, iFR/FFR could demonstrate different physiological or clinical outcomes in some specific patient or lesion subsets. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of difference between iFR and FFR-guided revascularization decision-making on clinical outcomes in patients with left main disease (LMD). In this international multicenter registry of LMD with physiological interrogation, we identified 275 patients in whom physiological assessment was performed with both iFR/FFR. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed for both iFR/FFR to predict MACE in respective patients in whom revascularization was deferred and performed. In 153 patients of revascularization deferral, MACE occurred in 17.0% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR to predict MACE were 0.88 (specificity:0.74; sensitivity:0.65) and 0.76 (specificity:0.81; sensitivity:0.46), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for iFR than FFR (0.74; 95%CI 0.62-0.85 vs. 0.62; 95%CI 0.48-0.75; p = 0.012). In 122 patients of coronary revascularization, MACE occurred in 13.1% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR were 0.92 (specificity:0.93; sensitivity:0.25) and 0.81 (specificity:0.047; sensitivity:1.00), respectively. The AUCs were not significantly different between iFR and FFR (0.57; 95%CI 0.40-0.73 vs. 0.46; 95%CI 0.31-0.61; p = 0.43). While neither baseline iFR nor FFR was predictive of MACE in patients in whom revascularization was performed, iFR-guided deferral seemed to be safer than FFR-guided deferral.

Practical Application of Coronary Physiologic Assessment: Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Document: Part 2

Coronary physiologic assessment is performed to measure coronary pressure, flow, and resistance or their surrogates to enable the selection of appropriate management strategy and its optimization for patients with coronary artery disease. The value of physiologic assessment is supported by a large body of clinical data that has led to major recommendations in all practice guidelines. This expert consensus document aims to convey practical and balanced recommendations and future perspectives for coronary physiologic assessment for physicians and patients in the Asia-Pacific region, based on updated information in the field that includes both wire- and image-based physiologic assessment. This is Part 2 of the whole consensus document, which provides theoretical and practical information on physiologic indexes for specific clinical conditions and patient statuses.

Applied coronary physiology for planning and guidance of percutaneous coronary interventions. A clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the European Society of Cardiology

The clinical value of fractional flow reserve and non-hyperaemic pressure ratios are well established in determining an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). In addition, over the last 5 years we have witnessed a shift towards the use of physiology to enhance procedural planning, assess post-PCI functional results, and guide PCI optimisation. In this regard, clinical studies have reported compelling data supporting the use of longitudinal vessel analysis, obtained with pressure guidewire pullbacks, to better understand how obstructive CAD contributes to myocardial ischaemia, to establish the likelihood of functionally successful PCI, to identify the presence and location of residual flow-limiting stenoses and to predict long-term outcomes. The introduction of new functional coronary angiography tools, which merge angiographic information with fluid dynamic equations to deliver information equivalent to intracoronary pressure measurements, are now available and potentially also applicable to these endeavours. Furthermore, the ability of longitudinal vessel analysis to predict the functional results of stenting has played an integral role in the evolving field of simulated PCI. Nevertheless, it is important to have an awareness of the value and challenges of physiology-guided PCI in specific clinical and anatomical contexts. The main aim of this European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions clinical consensus statement is to offer up-to-date evidence and expert opinion on the use of applied coronary physiology for procedural PCI planning, disease pattern recognition and post-PCI optimisation.

Physiology-guided PCI versus CABG for left main coronary artery disease: insights from the DEFINE-LM registry

There have been no studies comparing clinical outcomes of physiology-guided revascularization in patients with unprotected left main coronary disease (ULMD) between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes between PCI and CABG of patients with physiologically significant ULMD. From an international multicenter registry of ULMD patients interrogated with instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), we analyzed data from 151 patients (85 PCI vs. 66 CABG) who underwent revascularization according to the cutoff value of iFR ≤ 0.89. Propensity score matching was employed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The secondary endpoints were the individual components of the primary endpoint. Mean age was 66.6 (± 9.2) years, 79.2% male. Mean SYNTAX score was 22.6 (± 8.4) and median iFR was 0.83 (IQR 0.74-0.87). After performing propensity score matching analysis, 48 patients treated with CABG were matched to those who underwent PCI. At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 8.3% in PCI group and 20.8% in CABG group, respectively (HR 3.80; 95% CI 1.04-13.9; p = 0.043). There was no difference in each component of the primary event (p > 0.05 for all). Within the present study, iFR-guided PCI was associated with lower cardiovascular events rate in patients with ULMD and intermediate SYNTAX score, as compared to CABG. State-of-the-art PCI vs. CABG for ULMD. Study design and primary endpoint in patients with physiologically significant ULMD. MACE was defined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. The blue line denotes the PCI arm, and the red line denotes the CABG arm. PCI was associated with significantly lower risk of MACE than CABG. CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; iFR: instantaneous wave-free ratio; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; ULMD: unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

Deferred Versus Performed Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease With Hemodynamic Significance

BACKGROUND

The majority of randomized controlled trials of revascularization decision-making excludes left main coronary artery disease (LMD). Therefore, contemporary clinical outcomes of patients with stable coronary artery disease and LMD with proven ischemia remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of physiologically significant LMD according to the treatment strategies of revascularization versus revascularization deferral.

METHODS

In this international multicenter registry of stable LMD interrogated with the instantaneous wave-free ratio, patients with physiologically significant ischemia (instantaneous wave-free ratio ≤0.89) were analyzed according to the coronary revascularization (n=151) versus revascularization deferral (n=74). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. The secondary end points were as follows: cardiac death or spontaneous LMD-related myocardial infarction; and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (14.9%) in the revascularized group and 21 patients (28.4%) in the deferred group (hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.20-0.89]; P=0.023). For the secondary end points, cardiac death or LMD-related myocardial infarction occurred significantly less frequently in the revascularized group (0.0% versus 8.1%; P=0.004). The rate of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem was also significantly lower in the revascularized group (5.4% versus 17.6%; hazard ratio, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.056-0.70]; P=0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who underwent revascularization for stable coronary artery disease and physiologically significant LMD determined by instantaneous wave-free ratio, the long-term clinical outcomes were significantly improved as compared with those in whom revascularization was deferred.

Contemporary Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A State-of-the-art Review

The majority of the left ventricular myocardium is supplied by the left main coronary artery. Atherosclerotic obstruction of the left main coronary artery therefore leads to significant myocardial jeopardy. Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) has been the gold standard for left main coronary artery disease in the past. However, advancements in technology have established percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a standard, safe and reasonable alternative to CABG, with comparable outcomes. Contemporary PCI of left main coronary artery disease comprises careful patient selection, accurate technique guided by either intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography and - if necessary - physiological assessment using fractional flow reserve. This review focuses on current evidence from registries and randomised trials comparing PCI with CABG, procedural tips and tricks, adjuvant technologies and the triumph of PCI.

Long-Term Outcomes of Revascularization Compared to Deferral in Stable Coronary Artery Disease: a Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study is assessing the long-term outcomes of revascularization compared to deferral in stable coronary artery disease with available literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

The overall safety of stable coronary artery disease using IFR has been well established. There have been very few studies that have examined the safety of deferral of revascularization vs revascularization. As seen in listed literature, there appears to be no difference between revascularization compared to deferral in stable coronary artery disease.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Revascularization of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Owing to a large-jeopardized myocardium, left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) represents the substantial high-risk anatomical subset of obstructive coronary artery disease. For several decades, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the "gold standard" treatment for LMCAD. Along with advances in CABG, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has also dramatically evolved over time in conjunction with advances in the stent or device technology, adjunct pharmacotherapy, accumulated experiences, and practice changes, establishing its position as a safe, reasonable treatment option for such a complex disease. Until recently, several randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and observational registries comparing PCI and CABG for LMCAD have shown comparable long-term survival with tradeoffs between early and late risk-benefit of each treatment. Despite this, there are still several unmet issues for revascularization strategy and management for LMCAD. This review article summarized updated knowledge on evolution and clinical evidence on the treatment of LMCAD, with a focus on the comparison of state-of-the-art PCI with CABG.

Jailed pressure wire technique for coronary bifurcation lesions: structural damage and clinical outcomes

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The use of a pressure wire as a jailed wire to evaluate side branch results during provisional stenting seems feasible. However, safety concerns exist due to the mechanical damage of the wire and the lack of prospective data evaluating the prognosis of patients treated using this technique. This study sought to evaluate the structural damage of the pressure wire in patients treated using the jailed pressure wire technique and to assess mid-term clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We enrolled 99 patients with single bifurcation lesions and provisional stenting as the strategy of choice. A jailed pressure wire was used to guide side branch intervention according to the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). A total of 114 patients and the respective nonpolymer-coated jailed wires were used as historical controls. Guidewire damage was evaluated by stereomicroscopy. The primary endpoint was significant microscopic damage. Major adverse cardiac events were evaluated at 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Significant microscopic damage was more frequent in pressure wires than in nonpolymer-coated wires (53.5% vs 22.8%, P<.001). There were no fractures in either group. There were fewer side branch interventions in the pressure wire group (postdilation/kissing balloon, 32.3% vs 56.1%, P=.001; stenting, 0.0% vs 2.6%, P=.104). The 2-year rate of major adverse cardiac events was similar between the 2 groups (HR_adj, 0.42; 95%CI, 0.10-1.73; P=.229).

CONCLUSIONS

Pressure wires were less resistant to jailing than conventional nonpolymer-coated wires. Patients treated with iFR-guided provisional stenting required fewer side branch interventions but had similar 2-year clinical outcomes than patients treated with the angiography-guided technique.

Coronary physiology in the catheterisation laboratory: an A to Z practical guide

Coronary revascularisation, either percutaneous or surgical, aims to improve coronary flow and relieve myocardial ischaemia. The decision-making process in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) remains largely based on invasive coronary angiography (ICA), even though until recently ICA could not assess the functional significance of coronary artery stenoses. Invasive wire-based approaches for physiological evaluations were developed to properly assess the ischaemic relevance of epicardial CAD. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and later, instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), were shown to improve clinical outcomes in several patient subsets when used for coronary revascularisation guidance or deferral and for procedural optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results. Despite accumulating evidence and positive guideline recommendations, the adoption of invasive physiology has remained quite low, mainly due to technical and economic issues as well as to operator-resistance to change. Coronary image-based computational physiology has been recently developed, with promising results in terms of accuracy and a reduction in computational time, costs, radiation exposure and risks for the patient. Lastly, the integration of intracoronary imaging and physiology allows for individualised PCI treatment, aiming at complete relief of ischaemia through optimised morpho-functional immediate procedural results. Instead of a conventional state-of-the-art review, this A to Z dictionary attempts to provide a practical guide for the application of coronary physiology in the catheterisation laboratory, exploring several methods, their pitfalls, and useful tips and tricks.

Left Main Coronary Artery Disease-Current Management and Future Perspectives

Due to its anatomical features, patients with an obstruction of the left main coronary artery (LMCA) have an increased risk of death. For years, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered as a gold standard for revascularization. However, notable advancements in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) led to its acknowledgement as an important treatment alternative, especially in patients with low and intermediate anatomical complexity. Although recent years brought several random clinical trials that investigated the safety and efficacy of the percutaneous approach in LMCA, there are still uncertainties regarding optimal revascularization strategies. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment methods of LMCA disease, focusing on percutaneous methods.

Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio for the Assessment of Intermediate Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Correlations With Fractional Flow Reserve/Intravascular Ultrasound and Prognostic Implications: The iLITRO-EPIC07 Study

BACKGROUND

There is little information available on agreement between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in left main coronary artery (LMCA) intermediate stenosis. Besides, several meta-analyses support the use of FFR to guide LMCA revascularization, but limited information is available on iFR in this setting. Our aims were to establish the concordance between FFR and iFR in intermediate LMCA lesions, to evaluate with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in cases of FFR/iFR discordance, and to prospectively validate the safety of deferring revascularization based on a hybrid decision-making strategy combining iFR and IVUS.

METHODS

Prospective, observational, multicenter registry with 300 consecutive patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis who underwent FFR and iFR and, in case of discordance, IVUS and minimal lumen area measurements. Primary clinical end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, LMCA lesion-related nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned LMCA revascularization.

RESULTS

FFR and iFR had an agreement of 80% (both positive in 67 and both negative in 167 patients); in case of disagreement (31 FFR+/iFR- and 29 FFR-/iFR+) minimal lumen area was ≥6 mm² in 8.7% of patients with FFR+ and 14.6% with iFR+. Among the 300 patients, 105 (35%) underwent revascularization and 181 (60%) were deferred according to iFR and IVUS. At a median follow-up of 20 months, major adverse cardiac events incidence was 8.3% in the defer group and 13.3% in the revascularization group (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI 0.30-1.72]; P=0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis, a physiology-guided treatment decision is feasible either with FFR or iFR with moderate concordance between both indices. In case of disagreement, the use of IVUS may be useful to indicate revascularization. Deferral of revascularization based on iFR appears to be safe in terms of major adverse cardiac events.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT03767621.

Physiological Approach for Coronary Artery Bifurcation Disease: Position Statement by Korean, Japanese, and European Bifurcation Clubs

Coronary artery bifurcation lesions are frequently encountered in cardiac catheterization laboratories and are associated with more complex procedures and worse clinical outcomes than nonbifurcation lesions. Therefore, anatomical and physiological assessment of bifurcation lesions before, during, and after percutaneous coronary intervention is of paramount clinical importance. Physiological assessment can help interventionalists appreciate the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery disease and guide ischemia-directed revascularization. However, it is important to understand that the physiological approach for bifurcation disease is more important than simply using physiological indexes for its assessment. This joint consensus document by the Korean, Japanese, and European bifurcation clubs presents the concept of a physiological approach for coronary bifurcation lesions, as well as current knowledge, practical tips, pitfalls, and future directions of applying physiological indexes in bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention. This document aims to guide interventionalists in performing appropriate physiology-based assessments and treatment decisions for coronary bifurcation lesions.

Towards a common pathway for the treatment of left main disease: contemporary evidence and future directions: Left main disease treatment

There is increasing evidence to support percutaneous treatment of left main (LM) disease. Due to its major clinical impact, any procedure in the left main should be meticulously planned and performed. In this review, we aim to integrate the available evidence into a common treatment pathway, starting with understanding the distinct anatomical features of the left main. A three-level decision-making process is presented. First, in instances of angiographic ambiguity, intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve can be used to decide if revascularisation could be deferred. Second, if revascularisation is indicated, the risks and benefits of percutaneous versus surgical procedures should be evaluated. Third, if percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is chosen, the operator should decide between the provisional single-stent versus upfront two-stent strategies. Regardless of the PCI technique selected, it should be performed according to the recommendations of a stepwise procedure utilising proximal optimisation (POT) after each instance of crossover stenting and kissing balloon inflation (KBI) where necessary. In addition to the recognised quality markers such as POT and KBI, we discuss the clinical relevance of the operator's LM PCI experience and the intracoronary imaging guidance when treating patients with left main disease.

Correlation of Intravascular Ultrasound and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Patients With Intermediate Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

[Figure: see text].

Physiology-Based Revascularization of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

It is of critical importance to correctly assess the significance of a left main lesion. Underestimation of significance beholds the risk of inappropriate deferral of revascularization, whereas overestimation may trigger major but unnecessary interventions. This article addresses the invasive physiological assessment of left main disease and its role in deciding upon revascularization. It mainly focuses on the available evidence for fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio, their interpretation, and limitations. We also discuss alternative invasive physiological indices and imaging, as well as the link between physiology, ischemia, and prognosis.