REC: Interventional Cardiology (English Ed.) (Aug 2021)

Usefulness of physiological coronary assessment with iFR in daily practice and all-comer patients: immediate and follow-up results

  • Cristina Pericet-Rodríguez,
  • Francisco José Hidalgo-Lesmes,
  • Rafael González-Manzanares,
  • Soledad Ojeda-Pineda,
  • Aurora Luque-Moreno,
  • Javier Suárez de Lezo,
  • Miguel Ángel Romero-Moreno,
  • Francisco Mazuelos-Bellido,
  • José María Segura Saint-Gerons,
  • Ana Fernández-Ruiz,
  • María Guisela Flores-Vergara,
  • Manuel Pan Álvarez-Ossorio

DOI
https://doi.org/10.24875/RECICE.M21000206
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 3, no. 3
pp. 182 – 189

Abstract

Read online

ABSTRACT Introduction and objectives: The objective of this study was to describe our experience with coronary physiology assessment using the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and/or a Syncvision-guided iFR-pullback study [Syncvision version 4.1.0.5, Philips Volcano, Belgium] in all-comer patients. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing coronary physiology assessment with the iFR (and/or a Syncvision-guided iFR-pullback study) at our center between January 2017 and December 2019 were included. The iFR cut-off value was 0.89. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, probable or definitive stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization. Results: A total of 277 patients with 433 lesions evaluated were included. The mean age was 65 ± 10 years and 74% were men. Personal history of diabetes mellitus was present in 41% of patients. Clinical presentation was stable angina in 160 patients (58%), and acute coronary syndrome in 117 patients (42%). iFRs > 0.89 were obtained in 266 lesions (61.4%) on which the PCI was postponed. The remaining lesions were revascularized. The Syncvision software was used to guide the iFR-pullback study in 155 lesions (36%) and the decision-making process, mainly in long, diffuse or sequential lesions (91 lesions, 58.7%), and intermediate lesions (52 lesions, 33.5%). After a median follow-up of 18 months, the primary endpoint occurred in 17 patients (6.1%) without differences regarding the baseline iFR (≤ 0.89 or > 0.89) (4.2% vs 3.8%; P = .9) or the clinical presentation (stable angina or acute coronary syndrome) (4.4% vs 8.5%; P = .1) Conclusions: The use of coronary physiology assessment with the iFR and the Syncvision-guided iFR-pullback study in the routine daily practice and in all-comer patients seems safe with a low percentage of major adverse cardiovascular events at the mid-term follow-up.

Keywords