Find in Library

Background: Recently, non-hyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) have been validated as a reliable alternative to fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, a discordance between FFR and NHPRs is observed in 20–25% of cases. The aim of this study is to evaluate predictors of discordance between FFR and diastolic Pressure ratio (dPR). Methods: PREDICT is a retrospective, single center, investigator-initiated study including 813 patients (1092vessels) who underwent FFR assessment of intermediate coronary lesions (angiographic 30%-80% stenosis). dPR was calculated using individual pressure waveforms and dedicated software. Clinical, angiographic and hemodynamic variables were compared between patients with concordant and discordant FFR and dPR values. Results: Median age was 65 (IQR:59–73) years and 70% were male. Hemodynamically significant lesions, as defined by FFR ≤ 0.80, and dPR ≤ 0.89, were identified in 29.6% and 30.3% of cases, respectively. Overall, FFR and dPR values were discordant in 22.1% patients (17.4% of the vessels). Discordance was related to FFR+/dPR- and FFR-/dPR + in 11.8% and 10.3% of patients, respectively.In case of FFR-dPR discordance, a higher prevalence of left anterior descending arteries lesions was observed (70.5% vs. 53.1%, p < 0.001) and mean values of both FFR and dPR were significantly lower (FFR 0.81 ± 0.05 vs 0.85 ± 0.08, p < 0.001, and dPR 0.89 ± 0.04 vs 0.92 ± 0.08,p < 0.001) as compared to vessels with FFR and dPR concordance. Following multivariable adjustment, dPR delta (defined as the absolute difference between measured dPR to the cut-off value of 0.89) turned out to be the only independent predictor of discordance (OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.68–0.79, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Our study suggests that FFR-to-dPR discordance occurs in approximately one-fifth of patients. Absolute dPR delta appears to be the only independent predictor of discordance.