Clinical Outcomes of Deferred Lesions by IVUS Versus FFR-Guided Treatment Decision

Shining light on neurovascular disease

Tortuosity and fragility of the intracranial vasculature have precluded the application of novel intravascular imaging modalities during the treatment of cerebrovascular pathologies. In other circulatory beds, these technologies have transformed clinical and therapeutic decision-making. A new report demonstrates the clinical use of high-resolution intravascular imaging in the human cerebrovasculature using neuro optical coherence tomography. This technology provides an unprecedented opportunity to examine the luminal dimensions of cerebrovascular disease. We expect that the neurointerventional community will rapidly adopt this technology-similar to wider adoptions by other vascular specialties-for both a better understanding of underlying disease and clarity of endovascular therapeutic safety and effectiveness.

Discordance Between Angiographic Assessment and Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasound in Intermediate Coronary Lesions: A Post-hoc Analysis of the FLAVOUR Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions.

METHODS

This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months.

RESULTS

The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCA-FFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479). Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02673424.