Comparison of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) — First real world experience

BACKGROUND:The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a new adenosine-independent index of coronary stenosis severity. Most published data have been based on off-line analyses of pressure recordings in a core laboratory. We prospectively compared real-time iFR and fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. METHODS AND RESULTS:iFR and FFR were measured in 151 coronary stenoses in 108 patients. Repeated iFR measurements were technically simple, showed excellent agreement [rs=0.99; p<0.0001], and the mean difference between consecutive iFR values was 0.0035 (limits of agreement: -0.019, 0.026). Mean iFR showed a significant correlation with FFR [rs=0.81; p<0.0001]. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis identified an optimal iFR cut-off value of 0.896 for categorization based on an FFR cut-off value 0.8. We compared two different iFR-based diagnostic strategies (iFR-only and hybrid iFR-FFR) with standard FFR: The iFR-only strategy showed good classification agreement (83.4%) with standard FFR. Use of the hybrid iFR-FFR strategy, assessing lesions in an iFR-gray zone of 0.86-0.93 by FFR, improved classification accuracy to 94.7%, and diagnosis would have been established in 61% of patients without adenosine-induced hyperemia. Notably, both iFR and FFR values were significantly higher in the posterior coronary vessels. CONCLUSIONS:Real-time iFR measurements are easily performed, have excellent diagnostic performance and confirm available off-line core laboratory data. The excellent agreement between repeated iFR measurements demonstrates the reliability of single measurements. Combining iFR with FFR in a hybrid strategy enhances diagnostic accuracy, exposing fewer patients to adenosine. Overall, iFR is a promising method, but still requires prospective clinical endpoint trial evaluation.