Justificación y diseño del estudio Concordancia entre RFF e iFR en lesiones del tronco común.Estudio iLITRO-EPIC-07

  1. Oriol Rodríguez-Leor 1
  2. José M. de la Torre Hernández 2
  3. Tamara García-Camarero 2
  4. Ramón López Palop 3
  5. Bruno García del Blanco 4
  6. Xavier Carrillo 5
  7. Juan Jose Portero Portaz 6
  8. Marcelo Jiménez Kockar 7
  9. Josep Gómez Lara 8
  10. Soledad Ojeda 9
  11. Fernando Alfonso 10
  12. Salvatore Brugaletta 11
  13. Ana M. Planas del Viejo 12
  14. Jose Antonio Linares Vicente 13
  15. Agustín Fernández Cisnal 14
  16. Beatriz Vaquerizo Montilla 15
  17. Francisco Fernández-Salinas 16
  18. José Francisco Díaz Fernández 17
  19. Juan Carlos Rama Merchán 18
  20. Eduardo Molina Navarro 19
  21. Erika Muñoz García 20
  22. Francisco José Morales Ponce 21
  23. R. Trillo Nouche 22
  24. Miren Telleria Arrieta 23
  25. Juan Rondán 24
  26. Pablo Avanzas Fernández 25
  27. José Moreu 26
  28. José A. Baz Alonso 27
  29. Felipe Hernández Hernández 28
  30. Javier Escaned 29
  31. J.M. Sanchís García 14
  32. Fernando Lozano 30
  33. Beatriz Toledano 31
  34. Puigfel 32
  35. Mario Sadaba 33
  36. Armando Pérez de Prado 34
  37. Erakutsi egile guztiak +
  1. 1 Institut del Cor-ICOR, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, España
  2. 2 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, IDIVAL, Santander, España
  3. 3 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, El Palmar, Murcia, España
  4. 4 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, España
  5. 5 nstitut del Cor-ICOR, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, España
  6. 6 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital General Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, España
  7. 7 Servei de Cardiologia, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, España
  8. 8 Servei de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, España
  9. 9 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Reina Sofía, Córdoba, España
  10. 10 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital de la Princesa, Madrid, España
  11. 11 Servei de Cardiologia, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, España
  12. 12 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital General Universitario de Castellón, Castellón de la Plana, Castellón, España
  13. 13 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, España
  14. 14 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Clínic de València, Universitat de València, València, España
  15. 15 Servei de Cardiologia, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, España
  16. 16 Servei de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitari Joan XXII, Tarragona, España
  17. 17 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital General Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, España
  18. 18 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital de Mérida, Mérida, Badajoz, España
  19. 19 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, España
  20. 20 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, España
  21. 21 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario de Puerto Real, Puerto Real, Cádiz, España
  22. 22 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, España
  23. 23 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario de Donostia, Donostia, Gipuzkoa, España
  24. 24 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital de Cabueñes, Gijón, Asturias, España
  25. 25 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Asturias, España
  26. 26 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Virgen de la Salud, Toledo, España
  27. 27 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario Álvaro Cunqueiro, Vigo, Pontevedra, España
  28. 28 Servicio de Cardiología, Clínica Universitaria de Navarra, Madrid, España
  29. 29 Hospital Clínico San Carlos IDISSC, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, España
  30. 30 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital General de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, España
  31. 31 Servei de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa, Terrassa, Barcelona, España
  32. 32 Servei de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitari de Girona Josep Trueta, Girona, España
  33. 33 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital de Galdakao-Usansolo, Galdakao, Bizkaia, España
  34. 34 Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital de León, León, España
Erakutsi afiliazioak +
Aldizkaria:
REC: Interventional Cardiology

ISSN: 2604-7276,  2604-7306

Argitalpen urtea: 2022

Alea: 4

Zenbakia: 1

Orrialdeak: 19-26

Mota: Artikulua

DOI: 10.24875/RECIC.M21000223 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: REC: Interventional Cardiology

Laburpena

Introduction and objectives: Patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis have been excluded from the trials that support the non-inferiority of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) compared to the fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the decision-making process of coronary revascularization. This study proposes to prospectively assess the concordance between the two indices in LMCA lesions and to validate the iFR cut-off value of 0.89 for clinical use. Methods: National, prospective, and observational multicenter registry of 300 consecutive patients with intermediate lesions in the LMCA (angiographic stenosis, 25% to 60%. A pressure gudiewire study and determination of the RFF and the iFR will be performed: in the event of a negative concordant result (FFR > 0.80/iFR > 0.89), no treatment will be performed; in case of a positive concordant result (FFR ≤ 0.80/iFR ≤ 0.89), revascularization will be performed; In the event of a discordant result (FFR> 0.80/iFR ≤ 0.89 or FFR ≤ 0.80/iFR> 0.89), an intravascular echocardiography will be performed and revascularization will be delayed if the minimum lumen area is > 6 mm2. The primary clinical endpoint will be a composite of cardiovascular death, LMCA lesion-related non-fatal infarction or need for revascularization of the LMCA lesion at 12 months. Conclusions: Confirm that an iFR-guided decision-making process in patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis is clinically safe and would have a significant clinical impact. Also, justify its systematic use when prescribing treatment in these potentially high-risk patients. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( Identifier: NCT03767621).

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • 1. Lindstaedt M, Spiecker M, Perings C, et al. How good are experienced interventional cardiologist at predicting the functional significance of intermediate or equivocal left main coronary stenosis? Int J Cardiol. 2007;120:254-261.
  • 2. Windecker S, Kohl P, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2541-2619.
  • 3. Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:2105-2111.
  • 4. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213-224.
  • 5. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI vs. medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991-1001.
  • 6. Hamilos M, Muller O, Cuisset T, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided treatment in patients with angiographically equivocal left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation. 2009;120:1505-1512.
  • 7. Sen S, Escaned J, Malik IS, et al. Development and validation of a new adenosine-independent index of stenosis severity from coronary wave-intensity analysis: results of the ADVISE (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1392-1402.
  • 8. Davies JE, Sen S, Dehbi HM, et al. Use of the instantaneous wave-free ratio or fractional flow reserve in PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1824-1834.
  • 9. Götberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir IJ, et al. iFRSWEDEHEART Investigators. Instantaneous free-wave ratio versus fractional flow reserve to guide PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1813-1823.
  • 10. Warisawa T, Cook CM, Rajkumar C, et al. Safety of Revascularization Deferral of Left Main Stenosis Based on Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Evaluation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:1655-1664.
  • 11. Kobayashi Y, Johnoson NP, Berry C, et al. The influence of lesion location on the diagnostic accuracy of adenosine-free coronary pressure wire measurements. J Am Coll Cardiol Interv. 2016;9:2390-2399.
  • 12. de la Torre Hernandez JM, Hernandez F, Alfonso F, et al. Prospective application of pre-defined intravascular ultrasound criteria for assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery lesions results from the multicenter LITRO study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:351-358.
  • 13. Nair PK, Marroquin OC, Mulukutla SR, et al. Clinical utility of regadenoson for assessing fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;1085-1092.
  • 14. Ragosta M, Dee S, Sarembock IJ, et al. Prevalence of unfavorable angiographic characteristics for percutaneous intervention in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:357-362.
  • 15. Cameron A, Kemp HG Jr, Fisher LD, et al. Left main coronary artery stenosis: angiographic determination. Circulation. 1983;68:484-489.
  • 16. Fisher LD, Judkins MP, Lesperance J, et al. Reproducibility of coronary arteriographic reading in the coronary artery study (CASS). Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1982;8:565-575.
  • 17. Arnett EN, Isner JM, Redwood DR, et al. Coronary artery narrowing in coronary heart disease: comparison of cineangiographic and necropsy findings. Ann Intern Med. 1979;91:350-356.
  • 18. Lenzen MJ, Boersma E, Bertrand ME, et al. Management and outcome of patients with established coronary artery disease: the Euro Heart Survey on coronary revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1169-1179.
  • 19. Kandzari DE, Colombo A, Park SJ, et al. Revascularization for unprotected left main disease: evolution of the evidence basis to redefine treatments standards. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1576-1588.
  • 20. Botman CJ, Schonberger J, Koolen S, et al. Does stenosis severity of native vessels influence bypass graft patency? A prospective FFR-guided study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:2093-2097.
  • 21. Mallidi J, Atreya AR, Cook J, et al. Long term outcomes following fractional flow reserve guided treatment of angiographically ambiguous left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:12-18.
  • 22. Petraco R, van de Hoef TP, Nijjer S, et al. Baseline instantaneous wave-free ratio as a pressure-only estimation of underlying coronary flow reserve: results of the JUSTIFY-CFR Study (Joined Coronary Pressure and Flow Analysis to Determine Diagnostic Characteristics of Basal and Hyperemic Indices of Functional Lesion Severity Coronary Flow Reserve). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:492-502.
  • 23. Nijjer SS, de Waard GA, Sen S, et al. Coronary pressure and flow relationships in humans: phasic analysis of normal and pathological vessels and the implications for stenosis assessment: a report from the Iberian-Dutch-English (IDEAL) collaborators. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2069-2080.
  • 24. Lee JM, Shin ES, Nam CW, et al. Clinical outcomes according to fractional flow reserve or instantaneous wave-free ratio in deferred lesions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:2502-2510.
Datuen iturria: Dialnet