Background The iFR (instantaneous free-wave ratio) is a new adenosine-independent measure of ischaemia possibly equivalent to FFR. 2 cut-offs have been mooted: A) iFR ≤0.89 abnormal and B) iFR <0.86 abnormal, iFR >0.93 normal and iFR 0.86–0.93 a grey-zone where FFR should be measured (hybrid approach). No study has prospectively assessed A vs B.
Methods Consecutive patients undergoing FFR had iFR measured first with A vs B compared in predicting FFR.
Results 55 consecutive patients were assessed: 34 men, mean age 63. 105 coronary arteries were assessed: mean FFR 0.84; 36 (34%) FFR ≤0.8; mean iFR 0.92; 34 (32%) iFR ≤0.89; 12 (11%) had iFR <0.86, 50 (48%) iFR 0.86–0.93 and 43 (41%) iFR >0.93. The correlation between iFR and FFR gave R2 0.64. The overall agreement between iFR and FFR was 79% using method A vs 98% using the hybrid/grey-zone approach. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were: 71% vs 100%; 83% vs 97%; 67% vs 94% and 86% vs 100%, respectively, with the hybrid approach superior for each value. Of the 50 grey zone cases, 22 (44%) had FFR ≤0.8 with method A only 60% accurate in predicting FFR. Outside the grey zone, method A was 96% accurate in predicting FFR. iFR was highly reproducible with 95% limits of agreement +0.01–0.015.
Conclusion The iFR is reproducible with modest correlation to FFR. Outside the grey zone, iFR <0.86 as abnormal and >0.93 as normal accurately predict FFR. Within the grey zone iFR 0.86–0.93 adenosine should be given and FFR measured. Using this approach 52% of cases would not require adenosine, with 98% accuracy.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.