Cook, Christopher M.Jeremias, AllenPetraco, RicardoSen, SayanNijjer, SukhjinderShun-Shin, Matthew J.Ahmed, Yousifde Waard, Guusvan de Hoef, TimEchavarria-Pinto, Maurovan Lavieren, MartijnLamee, Rasha AlKikuta, YuetsuShiono, YasutsuguBuch, AsheshMeuwissen, MartijnDanad, IbrahimKnaapen, PaulMaehara, AkikoKoo, Bon-KwonMintz, Gary S.Escaned, JavierStone, Gregg W.Francis, Darrel P.Mayet, JamilPiek, Jan J.van Royen, NielsDavies, Justin E.2020-04-172020-04-172017-12-26http://hdl.handle.net/10342/8187OBJECTIVES 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.Article10.1016/j.jcin.2017.09.021