|Description||OBJECTIVES The study sought to determine the coronary flow characteristics of angiographically intermediate stenoses classified as discordant by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR).
BACKGROUND Discordance between FFR and iFR occurs in up to 20% of cases. No comparisons have been reported between the coronary flow characteristics of FFR/iFR discordant and angiographically unobstructed vessels.
METHODS Baseline and hyperemic coronary flow velocity and coronary flow reserve (CFR) were compared
across 5 vessel groups: FFRþ/iFRþ (108 vessels, n 1⁄4 91), FFR–/iFRþ (28 vessels, n 1⁄4 24), FFRþ/iFR– (22 vessels, n 1⁄4 22), FFR–/iFR– (208 vessels, n 1⁄4 154), and an unobstructed vessel group (201 vessels, n 1⁄4 153), in a post hoc analysis of the largest combined pressure and Doppler flow velocity registry (IDEAL [Iberian-Dutch-English] collaborators study).
RESULTS FFRdisagreedwithiFRin14%(50of366).Baselineflowvelocitywassimilaracrossall5vesselgroups,includingthe unobstructed vessel group (p 1⁄4 0.34 for variance). In FFRþ/iFR– discordants, hyperemic flow velocity and CFR were similar to both FFR–/iFR– and unobstructed groups; 37.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 26.1 to 50.4) cm/s vs. 40.0 [IQR: 29.7 to 52.3] cm/s and 42.2 [IQR: 33.8 to 53.2] cm/s and CFR 2.36 [IQR: 1.93 to 2.81] vs. 2.41 [IQR: 1.84 to 2.94] and 2.50 [IQR: 2.11 to 3.17], respectively (p > 0.05 for all). In FFR–/iFRþ discordants, hyperemic flow velocity, and CFR were similar to the FFRþ/iFRþ group;
28.2 (IQR: 20.5 to 39.7) cm/s versus 23.5 (IQR: 16.4 to 34.9) cm/s and CFR 1.44 (IQR: 1.29 to 1.85) versus 1.39 (IQR: 1.06 to 1.88), respectively (p > 0.05 for all).
CONCLUSIONS FFR/iFR disagreement was explained by differences in hyperemic coronary flow velocity. Furthermore, coronary stenoses classified as FFRþ/iFR– demonstrated similar coronary flow characteristics to angiographically unobstructed vessels.||en_US