Determinants and prognostic implications of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients with mild to intermediate coronary stenosis: Comparison with those of fractional flow reserve.

Abstract

The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is used for assessing the hemodynamic severity of a lesion, as an alternative to the fractional flow reserve (FFR). We evaluated the relationship between iFR and FFR in detail and the clinical significance of iFR in patients with mild to intermediate coronary artery stenosis. We recruited consecutive 323 patients (421 lesions) with lesions exhibiting 30% to 80% diameter stenosis on angiography in whom FFR and iFR were measured. In the total lesions, mean diameter stenosis was 48.6% ± 9.0%, and physiological significance, defined by FFR of 0.80 or less or by iFR of 0.92 or less, was observed in 32.5% or 33.5%, respectively. Mismatch between iFR and FFR was observed in 18.1% of the lesions. Clinical factors did not predict FFR value; however, gender, diabetes mellitus, aortic stenosis, anemia, high-sensitivity CRP value, and renal function predicted iFR value. In multivariate logistic analysis after adjustment for FFR value, gender (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.005), aortic stenosis (p = 0.016), high-sensitivity CRP (p < 0.001), and renal function (p = 0.003) were all independent predictors of iFR value. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, the baseline iFR predicted the subsequent major cardiovascular events (MACE) (hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.16-4.93; p = 0.018) and the results of the iFR-guided strategy for predicting rates of MACE and myocardial infarction/revascularization were superior to those of the FFR-guided strategy. In conclusion, significant clinical factors predicted iFR value, which affected the prognostic capacity. The iFR-guided strategy may be superior in patients with mild to intermediate stenosis.