Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease (May 2022)

Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Instantaneous Wave‐Free Ratio in Assessment of Lesion Hemodynamic Significance and Explanation of their Discrepancies. International, Multicenter and Prospective Trial: The FiGARO Study

  • Tomas Kovarnik,
  • Matsuo Hitoshi,
  • Ales Kral,
  • Stepan Jerabek,
  • David Zemanek,
  • Yoshiaki Kawase,
  • Hiroyuki Omori,
  • Toru Tanigaki,
  • Jan Pudil,
  • Alexandra Vodzinska,
  • Marian Branny,
  • Roman Stipal,
  • Petr Kala,
  • Jan Mrozek,
  • Martin Porzer,
  • Tomas Grezl,
  • Kamil Novobilsky,
  • Oscar Mendiz,
  • Karel Kopriva,
  • Martin Mates,
  • Martin Chval,
  • Zhi Chen,
  • Pavel Martasek,
  • Ales Linhart

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.021490
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11, no. 9

Abstract

Read online

Background The FiGARO (FFR versus iFR in Assessment of Hemodynamic Lesion Significance, and an Explanation of Their Discrepancies) trial is a prospective registry searching for predictors of fractional flow reserve/instantaneous wave‐free ratio (FFR/iFR) discrepancy. Methods and Results FFR/iFR were analyzed using a Verrata wire, and coronary flow reserve was analyzed using a Combomap machine (both Philips‐Volcano). The risk polymorphisms for endothelial nitric oxide synthase and for heme oxygenase‐1 were analyzed. In total, 1884 FFR/iFR measurements from 1564 patients were included. The FFR/iFR discrepancy occurred in 393 measurements (20.9%): FFRp (positive)/iFRn (negative) type (264 lesions, 14.0%) and FFRn/iFRp (129 lesions, 6.8%) type. Coronary flow reserve was measured in 343 lesions, correlating better with iFR (R=0.56, P<0.0001) than FFR (R=0.36, P<0.0001). The coronary flow reserve value in FFRp/iFRn lesions (2.24±0.7) was significantly higher compared with both FFRp/iFRp (1.39±0.36), and FFRn/iFRn lesions (1.8±0.64, P<0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis confirmed (1) sex, age, and lesion location in the right coronary artery as predictors for FFRp/iFRn discrepancy; and (2) hemoglobin level, smoking, and renal insufficiency as predictors for FFRn/iFRp discrepancy. The FFRn/iFRp type of discrepancy was significantly more frequent in patients with both risk types of polymorphisms (endothelial nitric oxide synthaser+heme oxygenase‐1r): 8 patients (24.2%) compared with FFRp/iFRn type of discrepancy: 2 patients (5.9%), P=0.03. Conclusions Predictors for FFRp/iFRn discrepancy were sex, age, and location in the right coronary artery. Predictors for FFRn/iFRp were hemoglobin level, smoking, and renal insufficiency. The risk type of polymorphism in endothelial nitric oxide synthase and heme oxygenase‐1 genes was more frequently found in patients with FFRn/iFRp type of discrepancy. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03033810.

Keywords