Impact of Routine Invasive Physiology at Time of Angiography in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease on Reclassification of Revascularization Strategy: Results From the DEFINE REAL Study

Eric Van Belle, Robert Gil, Volker Klauss, Mohammed Balghith, Martijn Meuwissen, Jérôme Clerc, Bernhard Witzenbichler, Miha Cercek, Marios Vlachojannis, Irene Lang, Philippe Commeau, Flavien Vincent, Luca Testa, Wojciech Wasek, Nicolas Debry, Stephan Kische, Gabriele Gabrielli, Gennaro Sardella

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to prospectively assess the impact of routine invasive physiology at the time of angiography on reclassification of therapeutic management of multivessel disease (MVD) patients, and to assess how implementation of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) alters the process. Background: Routine invasive physiology in intermediate coronary lesions at the time of diagnostic angiography, primarily in patients with single-vessel disease and using fractional flow reserve (FFR), reclassifies coronary revascularization management in 26% to 44% of patients. The role of invasive physiology in patients with MVD is unclear. Methods: In 18 centers, 484 patients undergoing diagnostic angiography disclosing MVD with lesions >40% by visual assessment were included. Investigators were asked to prospectively define their initial management strategy based on angiography and clinical information. Invasive physiology (FFR or iFR driven) was then performed and final strategy defined. Initial and final vessel, patient, procedural, and overall management were described. Reclassification was defined as the difference between initial and final strategy. Results: The majority of patients were clinically stable (82.2%). Two- and 3-vessel disease was present in 73.3% and 26.7% of patients, respectively. Lesions investigated were “intermediate” with median percent stenosis, median FFR, and median iFR at 60% (interquartile range [IQR]: 50% to 70%), 0.84 (IQR: 0.78 to 0.90), and 0.92 (IQR: 0.85 to 0.96), respectively. Vessel management was reclassified by physiology in 30.0% (249 of 828) of vessels. Patient and overall management were reclassified in 26.9% (130 of 484) and 45.7% (211 of 484) of patients, respectively. Reclassification rates were high irrespective of initial management (optimal medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass grafting), and performance and results of pre-procedural noninvasive tests. Reclassification of overall management in particular increased with the number of vessels investigated (1 vessel: 37.3%; 2 vessels: 45.0%; 3 vessels: 66.7%; p = 0.002). Incorporating iFR in the decision process was associated with investigation of more vessels (p = 0.04) and higher reclassification (p = 0.0001). Conclusions: In patients with MVD and intermediate coronary lesions, invasive physiology at time of angiography reclassifies revascularization strategy in a large proportion of cases (26.9%) and investigation of more vessels is associated with higher reclassification rates.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)354-365
Number of pages12
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume11
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 26 2018

Keywords

  • coronary stenosis
  • FFR
  • iFR
  • MVD
  • physiological assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Impact of Routine Invasive Physiology at Time of Angiography in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease on Reclassification of Revascularization Strategy: Results From the DEFINE REAL Study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this