Fractional Flow Reserve: Does a Cut-off Value add Value?

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been shown to improve outcomes when used to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There have been two proposed cut-off points for FFR. The first was derived by comparing FFR against a series of non-invasive tests, with a value of ≤0.75 shown to predict a positive ischaemia test. It was then shown in the DEFER study that a vessel FFR value of ≥0.75 was associated with safe deferral of PCI. During the validation phase, a ‘grey zone’ for FFR values of between 0.76 and 0.80 was demonstrated, where a positive non-invasive test may still occur, but sensitivity and specificity were sub-optimal. Clinical judgement was therefore advised for values in this range. The FAME studies then moved the FFR cut-off point to ≤0.80, with a view to predicting outcomes. The ≤0.80 cut-off point has been adopted into clinical practice guidelines, whereas the lower value of ≤0.75 is no longer widely used. Here, the authors discuss the data underpinning these cut-off values and the practical implications for their use when using FFR guidance in PCI.

Disclosure
SRM and TRK have received research support from Volcano Corporation. ASPS has received consultancy fees from Volcano Corporation.
Correspondence
Andrew SP Sharp, Consultant Cardiologist, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Barrack Rd, Exeter, Devon EX2 5DW, UK. E: drandrewsharp@gmail.com
Received date
13 January 2016
Accepted date
25 February 2016
Citation
Interventional Cardiology Review 2016;11(1):17–26
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.15420/icr.2016:7:2
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Mike Parker, Medical Statistician at the Postgraduate Medical Institute at Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, UK. ASPS would like to acknowledge institutional support from the Gawthorn Cardiac Trust and the Exeter National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Facility.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an index used to describe the physiological significance of a coronary stenosis. It measures the pressure drop under conditions of maximal hyperaemia between the aorta and a selected vessel location distal to an angiographic lesion.1 Several FFR studies have identified patient groups in whom coronary stenting is associated with improved outcomes when compared with medical therapy (and vice versa). FFR-guided treatment prevents unnecessary stenting and therefore coronary physiology has been associated with improved outcomes at reduced cost, a rare combination in a new technology.2–7 Coronary physiological assessment is now an integral part of the modern catheterisation laboratory, with a level 1A recommendation by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for use in stable patients in whom evidence of ischaemia is not already available.8 Routine use of FFR, however, requires some understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the technology, to best apply the results obtained from the individual patient on the catheter laboratory table.

Ischaemic Heart Disease and Coronary Revascularisation

Angina is the clinical manifestation of myocardial ischaemia in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). It is caused by transient imbalance between blood supply and metabolic demand.9 The myocardial ischemia that causes angina is, however, not simply a question of a ‘blocked pipe’; rather, ischaemia is a result of complex pathophysiological mechanisms that include obstructive epicardial CAD, inflammation, microvascular coronary dysfunction, endothelial dysfunction, thrombosis and angiogenesis (see Figure 1).10

Obstructive epicardial CAD is only one of the factors that contributes to myocardial ischaemia and yet, in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease (IHD), great (some would say overwhelming) emphasis is given to identifying and eliminating obstructive epicardial CAD over other potential causes of ischaemia, some of which may have key therapeutic roles in treating patients with IHD. The reason for this emphasis is obvious – obstructive epicardial CAD is easily identified, easily understood and relatively easily treated by angiography and stenting or bypass grafting. Doing so, however, does not always relieve ischaemia.

Concept and Validation of Fractional Flow Reserve

When FFR is used to identify a potentially ischaemia-causing lesion, the aim is to identify deficient blood flow distal to a coronary lesion. However, unlike coronary pressure, measurement of coronary blood flow in the catheter laboratory is not technically straightforward. Given the theoretical linear correlation between pressure and flow under conditions of minimal, constant coronary microvascular resistance, the pressure traces that we acquire with a standard coronary pressure wire are used to estimate blood flow; pressure wires do not directly measure blood flow. This theoretical linear relationship between blood pressure and flow is achieved by inducing maximum hyperaemia in the distal bed through pharmacological means, which lowers microvascular resistance, rendering it of minimal significance within the equation governing the relationship between blood pressure and flow within a closed fluid-filled system.11

Figure 1: Myocardial Ischaemia is a Result of a Complex Multifactorial Pathophysiological Mechanism

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Figure 2: Summary of the DEFER Study Design

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Since the initial development of the tool, FFR has been comprehensively validated as an invasive physiological index of ischaemia against other non-invasive modalities, including positron emission tomography, dobutamine stress echocardiogram and exercise stress testing (see Table 1).12–16 Furthermore, FFR values have been demonstrated to improve and non-invasive evidence of ischaemia resolve after revascularisation.

The initial equation for FFR measurement (FFR=mean distal coronary pressure minus mean central venous pressure divided by mean aortic pressure minus central venous pressure [Pd–Pv/Pa–Pv] measured during stable, steady-state hyperaemia) incorporated central venous pressure values, as right atrial pressure impacted on the transmyocardial pressure gradient across a coronary artery; however, in order to simplify measurement,3–7 outcome studies removed the central venous pressure from the equation, leaving Pd/Pa, thus sacrificing theoretical fidelity to create a more accessible clinical tool. Outcome studies therefore used a version of the FFR equation that had already moved away from the theoretical physiological basis of its derivation, to improve adoption in the real world.

FFR Cut-off Values

There have been two proposed cut-off values for FFR, whereby treatment decisions are decided according to whether the result lies on one side of the cut-off value or another. An FFR value of ≤0.75 was first validated against a series of non-invasive tests and represented a value that predicted a positive non-invasive ischaemia test (see Table 1). Several independent studies have since demonstrated that FFR values between 0.67 and 0.75 accurately predict positive myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, exercise treadmill and stress echo results (see Table 1).17–27 Note that, as with all in vivo tests, variability was seen across the studies. One value for FFR did not consistently predict the same thing in different populations; nor did it consistently predict response again the same test. Some of these studies also incorporated right atrial pressure, whereas others did not; this introduces a source of variability that we no longer account for in the real world. Minor variability is expected with any in vivo tool, but it is a point of potential significance when one considers the importance of a ‘cut-off’ value in clinical decision making. What appeared consistent across several studies, was that values between 0.76 and 0.80 showed sub-optimal specificity for predicting non-invasive test results and these values were, therefore, labelled as being in the ‘grey zone’, whereby clinician judgement would be required to decide whether a lesion was ischaemia-producing, based on the broader clinical picture.17–27

Despite the obvious minor variability in the measurement and predictive performance of FFR in clinical studies, it is clear from these studies that using an FFR cut-off value of ≤0.75 has a good chance of identifying ischaemia in the vessel being examined.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Functionally Non-significant Stenosis

The DEFER study examined the outcomes of treating FFR-negative lesions with either stenting with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; Perform group) or PCI deferral (Defer group), on the basis of an FFR value of ≥0.75 (see Figure 2).3 Although the coronary interventional technologies deployed in this study were of a different era, the pattern appeared clear – stenting of lesions using PCI without a substantial pressure drop did not derive outcome benefits over 5 years of followup, and may have caused harm. Event-free survival at 5 years was 79 % in the Defer group and 73 % in the Perform group, confirming no advantage from PCI of non-flow-limiting lesions (P=0.52; see Table 2). A composite endpoint of death and MI favoured deferral in lesions with an FFR of ≥0.75.

More recent data from Korea suggest that the use of drug-eluting stents do not change this concept; there appears to be little advantage to stenting vessels that do not exhibit a significant pressure drop.28

Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

In the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) studies, the prognostic significance of stenting was examined in patients with multi-vessel disease who were receiving optimal medical therapy, to establish whether FFR guidance could improve outcomes. Within these studies, the FAME investigators abolished the grey zone, creating a single FFR cut-off value for predicting outcome of ≤0.80. The logic behind this, is that in identifying a patient who has ischaemia (as defined by an FFR value that would predict a positive non-invasive test), there is a certain ‘cliff-edge’ phenomenon to this result; either the patient does or does not have ischaemia at that point. However, a value that lies within a few points of this proposed cut-off value, whether currently ischaemic or not, may still serve to identify a patient at risk of progressing to events in the next few years, although data have shown that the lower the FFR value, the more likely a lesion is to lead to a clinical event during the next 5 years.29 This concept was supported by findings from a recent observational study, further confirming the gradient of risk seen within FFR values, a gradient that appeared detectable even in those within the grey zone.30

Table 1: Studies Comparing FFR Against Non-invasive Tests

Open in new tab
Open ppt

The first FAME study examined patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease referred for PCI and performed FFR in each lesion deemed to be more than 50 % diameter luminal stenosis by visual assessment (see Figure 3).4,31 Patients were then randomised to either angiography-guided PCI, where the operator stented any lesion of >50 % severity that they deemed required PCI, or FFRguided PCI, where all lesions with an FFR ≤0.80 were treated, and the rest deferred. Better outcomes were demonstrated among the patients treated using FFR-guidance compared with those who received PCI on the basis of angiographic severity alone. The primary endpoint, a composite of death, MI and repeat revascularisation, occurred in 67 patients (13.2 %) in the FFR group and 91 patients (18.3 %) in the angiography group (RR 0.72; 95 % CI [0.54–0.96]; P=0.02; see Table 3).4

Table 2: Summary of Results From the DEFER Study

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Table 3: Summary of Results From the FAME Study

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Figure 3: Summary of the FAME Study Design

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Having the COURAGE to Re-assert the Role of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Angina

The importance of the FAME-2 study has to be set into context of the field as it existed in 2007/2008. Following the publication of the COURAGE trial results in 2007, the role of PCI in stable angina was being openly questioned.32 Comparing the event rates in IHD populations, no difference was demonstrated between the group randomised to optimal medical therapy (OMT; with bailout PCI at the investigator’s discretion) versus those randomised to PCI using bare-metal stents.

There are many important aspects of the COURAGE trial that are occasionally overlooked, which are relevant to the understanding of the importance of the FAME-2 study and the simple message that this study was then able to put forward. Importantly, in the COURAGE trial, bailout revascularisation was required in 32 % of the medical therapy group – a highly selected, low-to-medium cardiovascularrisk group of patients, randomised to receive intensive, personalised medical therapy. High rates of beta-blocker tolerance at 5 years were demonstrated in the group: 85 % in those receiving PCI plus OMT and 86 % in those receiving OMT alone (see Table 4).32 This 32 % bailout rate is not an inconsiderable failure rate for medical therapy as a primary strategy. Any mechanism that can identify these patients up front and lessen the need for bailout revascularisation would be desirable, especially in the real world, where patients tend to have lower rates of compliance with prescribed drugs.

Table 4: Summary of Results From the COURAGE Trial

Open in new tab
Open ppt

The FAME-2 Study

In the FAME-2 study, patients with IHD on optimal medical therapy underwent pressure wiring of all vessels with angiographically identifiable lesions.6 All pressure wire-positive patients (FFR≤0.80) were then randomised to PCI or OMT (see Figure 4). This study was stopped prematurely at a mean follow-up of 7 months due to a significant between-group difference in the incidence of the primary endpoint (4.3 % in the PCI-plus-OMT group versus 12.7 % in the OMT-alone group; hazard ratio [HR] with PCI 0.32; 95 % CI [0.19–0.53]; P<0.001; see Table 5). The primary superiority endpoint of this trial, a reduction in the rate of death, MI and urgent revascularisation, was met, principally through a reduction in the rate of urgent revascularisation. Urgent revascularisation was performed in 49 (11.1 %) patients in the OMT group versus seven (1.6 %) patients in the PCI group (HR with PCI 0.13; 95 % CI [0.06–0.30]; P<0.001; see Table 6).

The strength of this particular endpoint is often discussed. Half of these patients (n=27 [48.2 %]) had blinded adjudication committee evidence of instability (increased troponin levels, ECG changes at rest) and therefore had clear evidence of a significant acute coronary problem. In 29 patients (51.8 %) who underwent urgent revascularisation, unstable angina was diagnosed based on clinical features with no evidence of ischaemic ECG changes or positive cardiac biomarkers (see Table 7).6

Excluding the patients without objective evidence of an acute problem, the difference between the PCI group (seven patients) and the difference in patients with unstable ECGs (read by a blinded committee) or increased troponin levels (27 patients) remains significant. (P<0.001; see Table 7).6 However, there were no significant differences between the PCI group and the OMT group with regards to rates of all-cause mortality (0.2 % versus 0.7 %, respectively; P=0.31) and MI (3.4 % versus 3.2 %, respectively; P=0.89; see Table 6).

The FAME-2 study is sometimes criticised for stopping early and for the nature of the events that drove the primary endpoint. This point of view does not take account of the statistical realities of a trial looking at outcomes for stable IHD in the modern era, where ethics requires exclusion of those patients at the highest risk from their coronary disease. Because of the low likelihood of death or MI in a chronic, low- to medium-risk stable heart disease population in the modern era, the FAME-2 primary endpoint was going to be driven by the rate of unplanned revascularisation regardless of the number of randomised patients. Without a more than five-fold increase in the sample size, which would have no doubt rendered the trial financially impossible to perform, there is no way this study could have predicted death. To illustrate this fact, there were only four deaths in the trial (one in the PCI group and three in the OMT group) at the time point when the trial was stopped, having identified that the primary endpoint had been met and that this fact was highly unlikely to change. These very low death rates emphasise that in the modern era of OMT no technology would be able to predict death in low- to medium-risk patients without conducting a large trial, only to demonstrate a small actual difference in death rates. If we exclude those with high mortality risk (such as ongoing class IV angina, poor left ventricular function, left main stenosis, ‘surgical disease’, etc), we will find it hard to predict death.

Figure 4: Summary of the FAME-2 Study Design

Open in new tab
Open ppt

We examined the study protocol and the clinical events in the primary endpoint report from the FAME-2 study.7 The 2-year study results reported six versus eight deaths and 26 versus 30 MI events observed between the two groups. By comparing two proportions,33 we calculated the predicted sample sizes necessary to show a difference between death and MI at 2 years, when the study was originally due to report. These sample sizes were: death or MI (n=7,828), MI (n=19,486) and death (n=22,748; see Figure 5). Clearly, the sample size needed to show a difference in death/MI would have been huge and not easily possible to achieve given the cost of catheter laboratory-based trials. While the sample size for MI might be expected to fall if we take into account the different nature of MI within PCI trials (peri-procedural versus spontaneous), the sample size required would be still have to be significantly larger than that of FAME-2 study if we wanted to examine death/MI as a powered endpoint. The alternative would be a longer period of follow-up, which presumes that events will separate between the two groups after 1 year.

Table 5: Summary of Results From the FAME-2 Study

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Table 6: Clinical Events in the FAME-2 Study

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Table 7: Sub-group Analysis of Patients who Underwent Urgent Revascularisation in the FAME-2 Study

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Summary of Fractional Flow Reserve Cut-off Values Used in Studies to Date

We have several previously proposed FFR cut-off values, each of which has been validated in selected patient populations. A cut-off of ≤0.75 has been shown to predict a positive non-invasive test with good accuracy. It has also been shown that, if one performs PCI on a patient with an FFR of ≥0.75, one is not likely to reduce the rate of death/MI (see Table 2). A cut-off value of ≤0.80 has also been shown to predict outcomes following PCI in stable disease populations with multi-vessel disease and to further improve clinical outcomes in patients on OMT.4,6

These cut-off values are clear and send a simple message to operators – that physiological guidance can help us make treatment decisions on our patients. If cut-off values are to be helpful, on a perpatient level; howeverwe need to know of any potential downsides of basing our treatment decisions on FFR results.

Potential Downsides of a Binary Cut-off Value in FFR

The clarity of the existing cut-off values for FFR helps make pressure wire technology accessible and easy to use, but questions remain regarding how to interpret these data. In order for a cut-off to have statistical and clinical power, it must clearly demarcate a difference between those above that value and those below. It must be robust, reproducible and have low false-positive and false-negative rates. After all, a binary cut-off means that if the result is 0.81, the test tells us not to perform PCI. If the result is 0.80, the test tells us to proceed. This approach may apply to particular populations, but what about the single patient in front of us? Is FFR robust enough as a test to reliably do this? Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, are we applying our use of FFR to the same types of patients as were recruited to the key trials described above, who have been shown to benefit from this approach as a group?

Routes and Doses of Adenosine Administration

During the initial FFR validation work against non-invasive ischaemia tests, two routes of administration were used to establish cut-off values – intravenous adenosine and intracoronary adenosine.1,14,15,17–27,34–38 The adenosine doses that had diagnostic ability to identify ischaemiaproducing lesions against non-invasive tests were 140 μg/kg/min and up to maximum of 40–60 μg for intravenous administration of adenosine and intracoronary adenosine, respectively (see Table 1).

In DEFER and FAME-2 studies, operators used either intravenous or intracoronary adenosine, whereas in the first FAME study, central intravenous adenosine administration (see Tables 2, 3 and 5) was used.3,4,6,7 It is important to note that higher doses of adenosine have not been validated in clinical outcome studies and increasing the adenosine dose may alter the treatment threshold by lowering systemic blood pressure and altering the ratio between Pd and Pa (as opposed to altering the ratio by lowering peripheral microvascular resistance).

The agreement between intravenous and intracoronary adenosine is generally good at recommended doses.39,40 However, the chances of securing the same dichotomous treatment recommendation by each method of adenosine administration falls to 78 % at FFR values of approximately 0.8041 and there is a hyperaemic dose–response relationship seen with intracoronary doses of >60 μg.42 The route of adenosine administration differs from centre to centre,43 and while FFR measurement with central administration of intravenous adenosine is considered the gold standard, in the era of transradial PCI, intracoronary or peripheral intravenous administration of adenosine is more practical, although this does give similar FFR results to centrally administered adenosine.44,45

Broader FFR Limitations

FFR has several other limitations. Identification of a functionally significant coronary stenosis by FFR may be obscured by the magnitude of residual coronary microvascular resistance during hyperaemia. This can occur in the presence of high left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and/or diseases which particularly affect the microvasculature.46 Decisions based on FFR cut-off values (e.g. defer/ perform based on FFR ≤0.80) have also been shown to change once right atrial pressure is incorporated into the FFR calculation.47

Variable haemodynamic responses can also confound measurement, particularly when adenosine infusions are administered centrally48 and recorded measurements can vary according to differing operator/FFR console interpretations of minimum Pd/Pa during the hyperaemic response.49,50 Furthermore, functional significance of a stenosis may be overestimated where the vessel in question gives off important collaterals to a chronic total occlusion (CTO) vascular territory, and often normalised in a donor vessel with moderate stenosis following successful CTO PCI.51 Recanalisation of a CTO was also shown to result in a modest increase in the FFR of the predominant collateral donor vessel and was associated with a reduction in donor vessel coronary flow. As expected, a larger increase in FFR is associated with greater coronary stenosis in donor artery severity.52

Figure 5: An Illustration of How Many Patients Would Have Been Required in the FAME-2 Study to Show Difference in Rates of Death and/or MI

Open in new tab
Open ppt

These everyday factors can reclassify lesion significance where values fall near a cut-off value and may result in inappropriate treatment decisions if operators make their decisions based solely on a cut-off value.

Which Patients had Events in the Studies to Date? Were They Clustered Around the Cut-off Value?

Johnson et al. showed within a large, patient-level meta-analysis of multiple FFR trials that FFR values of <0.67 most clearly identified those at risk of MI or death.18 In fact, the mean FFR values obtained from ischaemic vessels in the DEFER, FAME and FAME-2 studies were 0.56±0.16, 0.60±0.14 and 0.68±0.10, respectively (see Tables 2, 3 and 5),3,4,6,7 which are more severe than the results we see when we use pressure wire technology in routine clinical practice to assess an intermediate stenosis of uncertain significance. Operators have frequently considered tight lesions to be more at risk of events and would not look for another test when treating such patients who have clear symptoms of angina. The available FFR trial data support that concept.

What do Existing FFR Cut-off Values Tell us About Intermediate Stenoses?

Importantly, no randomised FFR study to date has examined a cohort of angiographically intermediate lesions, where the use off FFR has been tested in the scenario of treatment uncertainty (Tables 2, 3 and 5). Despite this, many operators use FFR to assess these patients in the real world. This observation has obvious importance, as the further a value is away from a cut-off point (strongly ischaemic versus trivial obstruction), the stronger it becomes at predicting outcomes when dichotomised to PCI performance/deferral. Intermediate stenoses, however, tend to have intermediate FFR values that cluster around the cut-off point. The average FFR value in the ADVISE (Adenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation) registry of intermediate coronary lesions was 0.81.53

Figure 6: Schematic Diagram Illustrating Coronary Physiology Measurement Zones

Open in new tab
Open ppt

The Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation (DEFINE-FLAIR) and Evaluation of iFR vs FFR in Stable Angina or Acute Coronary Syndrome (iFR Swedeheart) studies, expected to report results in late 2016/early 2017, will be the first major studies to report outcomes with FFR and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in a large (n=4,500) population of angiographically intermediate lesions.54,55 These studies will provide us with the definitive assessment of the ability of an FFR cut-off value of ≤0.80 and an iFR cut-off value of <0.90 to predict outcomes in intermediate lesions and establish whether the two modalities have similar predictive powers for future events.

If we get an FFR Value of 0.81 in an Angiographically Intermediate Stenosis, Could This Still be an Ischaemia-causing Lesion?

The degree of blood pressure drop across a lesion is related to the absolute flow rate across that lesion. The whole point of FFR is for an intracoronary pressure gradient to tell us what intracoronary blood flow is doing; however, in low-flow situations, a pressure drop may be underestimated and in high-flow situations, a pressure drop may overestimate the degree of obstruction.56 High blood flow creates greater friction and separation losses, causing a pressure drop, whereas low flow does the opposite, minimising observed pressure loss.57 Using Doppler-derived flow measurements, such as coronary flow velocity reserve (CFR) and the index of microcirculatory resistance, can help to identify such cases, but these techniques are time consuming and not widely available outside of a research setting (see Figure 6).

Treatment recommendation discordance (perform PCI versus deferral) between dichotomised findings derived from FFR and CFR has been reported in up to 30–40 % of coronary stenoses.58,59

Van de Hoef et al. studied 157 intermediate coronary stenoses evaluated by FFR and CFR in which revascularisation was deferred and followed-up for 11.7 years.56 Discordance between the FFR and CFR treatment recommendation occurred in 31 % and 37 % of stenoses at the 0.75 and 0.80 FFR cut-off values, respectively, and was explained by the degree of microvascular resistance during basal and hyperaemic conditions. Compared with concordant normal (‘defer’) dichotomised results of FFR and CFR, a ‘normal’ FFR with an abnormal CFR was associated with a significantly increased rate of major adverse cardiac events throughout 10 years of follow-up, regardless of the FFR cut-off applied. CFR has demonstrated abnormal flow, which is a marker of adverse outcomes and in this case, FFR has not been able to identify this finding using pressure alone. In contrast, an abnormal FFR with a normal CFR was associated with equivalent clinical outcomes when compared with normal results of both parameters; this can be explained by the fact that abnormal blood flow is one of the principal drivers of ischaemia and therefore outcomes.56

Who in Particular Might Have ‘False Positive’ Results, Whereby the FFR Value is <0.80, but who Have Good Blood Flow and low Risk?

Patients with healthy microvasculature but focal epicardial lesions can exhibit a large pressure drop across a stenosis upon introduction of adenosine. CFR studies in these patients show that the microvasculature is able to dilate such that blood flow can sometimes be increased more than three-fold across these stenoses. Of course, if a patient is able to mount a substantial increase in blood flow across an epicardial stenosis, the stenosis is not ‘flow limiting’ and is therefore unlikely to benefit from PCI as far as symtoms are concerned. Unfortunately, such patients tend to be young and have a longer lifespan to reflect on the worth of a possibly unnecessary stent procedure.

What Happens When we Dichotomise Continuous Data?

Cut-off values are artificial constructs designed to assist us in clinical decision making. However, by their nature they are conceived by analysis of groups of patients, rather than the potentially variable individual on one’s catheter laboratory table. FFR reproducibility data from the DEFER study were analysed to see the effects of FFR measurement variability on FFR-guided treatment strategy.60 This analysis showed that outside the FFR range of 0.75–0.85, classification certainty (PCI performance versus deferral) from a single FFR result is >95 %. However, closer to its cut-off value, certainty falls to <80 % within the range of 0.77–0.83; reaching a nadir of 50 % at the precisely defined cut-off point of 0.80. In clinical practice, this means that each time a single FFR value falls between the range of 0.75–0.85, there is a chance that the FFR-derived dichotomous revascularisation recommendation will change if the measurement is repeated 10 minutes later, with a 0.80 result shown to be as repeatable as a coin toss.60 This is not a limitation of FFR; rather, this is a limitation of any measured clinical variable where so many physiological factors input into the result. The consequences for the operator, however, are obvious. If we transfer all of our clinical judgement onto a single dichotomous variable, we will sometimes get a variable answer.

For a group of patients, if we subjugate our judgement to the test, we will be right considerably more often than we are wrong, whether we are looking for ischaemia or prognosis in those patients. However, this is of little comfort to the patient whose result leads to ‘treat’, when they could have been deferred, and vice versa. Fortunately, however, therefore, there remains a role for clinician judgement in the interpretation of all available variables, be they clinical, angiographic or physiological. Operators are encouraged to bear these points in mind when they use FFR, which in our view should be seen as a generally faithful servant, rather than a rigid, incontrovertible master.

Conclusion

FFR is now a staple tool in the modern catheter laboratory. Like all tests of a human physiological parameter, it has both strengths and limitations. The data on which FFR has been validated come from specific sub-groups of angiographic populations and has not yet been categorically proven in all populations. In particular, it has not yet been tested in intermediate lesions within outcome studies, although such studies are ongoing. We should therefore use the information provided by FFR as part of a broader view of our patient.

FFR cut-off values are a summation of what these studies tells us and are extremely useful in making what could be a complex tool simple and accessible to all interventional cardiologists. However, the value derived is not absolute and the dichotomous partition of a naturally variable physiologically parameter reduces the power of the information received. The lower the FFR, the more potent the predictive power for outcomes and operators should be cognisant of this finding. Basic principles tell us that a policy of simplistic absolutism is rarely in the interests of our patients and FFR is no different in that respect. We recommend widespread adoption of FFR in all modern catheter laboratories, but recommend it as an adjunct to clinical decision making, not a replacement for it, as no tool purporting to measure a human physiological parameter is perfect.

References
  1. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1703–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Bech GJW, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation 2001;103:2928–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  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;49:2105–11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009;360:213–24.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Fearon WF, Bornschein B, Tonino PA, et al. Economic evaluation of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease. Circulation 2010;122:2545–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2012;367:991–1001.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1208–17.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Authors/Task Force members, Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 2014;35:2541–619.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Task Force Members, Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2949–3003.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Marzilli M, Merz CN, Boden WE, et al. Obstructive coronary atherosclerosis and ischemic heart disease: an elusive link! J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:951–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Pijls NH, van Son JA, Kirkeeide RL, et al. Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing functional stenosis severity before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1993;87:1354– 67.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. De Bruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA, et al. Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in humans. Validation with positron emission tomography. Circulation 1994;89:1013–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. De Bruyne B, Paulus WJ, Pijls NHJ. Rationale and application of coronary transstenotic pressure gradient measurements. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1994;33:250–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. De Bruyne B, Bartunek J, Sys SU, Heyndrickx GR. Relation between myocardial fractional flow reserve calculated from coronary pressure measurements and exercise-induced myocardial ischemia. Circulation 1995;92:39–46.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Pijls NHJ, Van Gelder B, Van der Voort P, et al. Fractional flow reserve. A useful index to evaluate the influence of an epicardial coronary stenosis on myocardial blood flow. Circulation 1995;92:3183–93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Pijls NHJ, Willem Bech GJ, El Gamal MIH, et al. Quantification of recruitable coronary collateral blood flow in conscious humans and its potential to predict future ischemic events. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;25:1522–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Jimenez-Navarro M, Alonso-Briales JH, Hernandez Garcia MJ, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess moderately severe coronary lesions: correlation with dobutamine stress echocardiography. J Interv Cardiol 2001;14:499–504.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Rieber J, Jung P, Erhard I, et al. Comparison of pressure measurement, dobutamine contrast stress echocardiography and SPECT for the evaluation of intermediate coronary stenoses. The COMPRESS trial. Int J Cardiovasc Interv 2004;6:142–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Erhard I, Rieber J, Jung P, et al. The validation of fractional flow reserve in patients with coronary multivessel disease: a comparison with SPECT and contrast-enhanced dobutamine stress echocardiography. Z Kardiol 2005;94:321–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Hacker M, Rieber J, Schmid R, et al. Comparison of Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT with fractional flow reserve in patients with intermediate coronary artery stenoses. J Nucl Cardiol 2005;12:645–54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Tron C, Donohue TJ, Bach RG, et al. Comparison of pressurederived fractional flow reserve with poststenotic coronary flow velocity reserve for prediction of stress myocardial perfusion imaging results. Am Heart J 1995;130:723–33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Bartunek J, Van Schuerbeeck E, de Bruyne B. Comparison of exercise electrocardiography and dobutamine echocardiography with invasively assessed myocardial fractional flow reserve in evaluation of severity of coronary arterial narrowing. Am J Cardiol 1997;79:478–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Caymaz O, Fak AS, Tezcan H, et al. Correlation of myocardial fractional flow reserve with thallium-201 SPECT imaging in intermediate-severity coronary artery lesions. J Invasive Cardiol 2000;12:345–50.
    PubMed
  24. Fearon WF, Takagi A, Jeremias A, et al. Use of fractional myocardial flow reserve to assess the functional significance of intermediate coronary stenoses. Am J Cardiol 2000;86:1013– 4, A10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Chamuleau SA, Meuwissen M, van Eck-Smit BL, et al. Fractional flow reserve, absolute and relative coronary blood flow velocity reserve in relation to the results of technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography in patients with two-vessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:1316–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Seo JK, Kwan J, Suh JH, et al. Early dipyridamole stress myocardial SPECT to detect residual stenosis of infarct related artery: comparison with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. Korean J Intern Med 2002;17:7–13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Kruger S, Koch KC, Kaumanns I, et al. Use of fractional flow reserve versus stress perfusion scintigraphy in stent restenosis. Eur J Intern Med 2005;16:429–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Park SH, Jeon KH, Lee JM, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of fractional flow reserve-guided versus routine drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis: five-year clinical outcomes of DEFER-DES trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8. pii: e002442.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Johnson NP, Toth GG, Lai D, et al. Prognostic value of fractional flow reserve: linking physiologic severity to clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:1641–54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Adjedj J, De Bruyne B, Floré V, et al. Significance of intermediate values of fractional flow reserve in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 2016;133:502–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Fearon WF, Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Siebert U, et al. Rationale and design of the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study. Am Heart J 2007;154:632–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1503–16.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Casagrande JT, Pike MC. An improved approximate formula for calculating sample sizes for comparing two binomial distributions. Biometrics 1978;34:483–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Samady H, Lepper W, Powers ER, et al. Fractional flow reserve of infarct-related arteries identifies reversible defects on noninvasive myocardial perfusion imaging early after myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:2187–93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Bartunek J, Marwick TH, Rodrigues ACT, et al. Dobutamineinduced wall motion abnormalities: Correlations with myocardial fractional flow reserve and quantitative coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27:1429–36.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Bartunek J, et al. Fractional flow reserve in patients with prior myocardial infarction. Circulation 2001;104:157–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Ziaee A, Parham WA, Herrmann SC, et al. Lack of relation between imaging and physiology in ostial coronary artery narrowings. Am J Cardiol 2004;93:1404–7, A9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Ragosta M, Bishop AH, Lipson LC, W et al. Comparison between angiography and fractional flow reserve versus single-photon emission computed tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging for determining lesion significance in patients with multivessel coronary disease. Am J Cardiol 2007;99:896–902.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Schlundt C, Bietau C, Klinghammer L, et al. Comparison of intracoronary versus intravenous administration of adenosine for measurement of coronary fractional flow reserve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8. pii: e001781.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Jeremias A, Whitbourn RJ, Filardo SD, et al. Adequacy of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine-induced maximal coronary hyperemia for fractional flow reserve measurements. Am Heart J 2000;140:651–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Lim W, Koo B, Nam C, et al. Variability of fractional flow reserve according to the methods of hyperemia induction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2015;85:970–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Casella G, Leibig M, Schiele TM, et al. Are high doses of intracoronary adenosine an alternative to standard intravenous adenosine for the assessment of fractional flow reserve? Am Heart J 2004;148:590–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Tebaldi M, Biscaglia S, Pecoraro A, et al. Fractional flow reserve implementation in daily clinical practice: A European survey. Int J Cardiol 2016;207:206–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Scott P, Sirker A, Dworakowski R, et al. Fractional flow reserve in the transradial era: will hand vein adenosine infusion suffice?: A comparative study of the extent, rapidity, and stability of hyperemia from hand and femoral venous routes of adenosine administration. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8:527–35.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Seo MK, Koo BK, Kim JH, et al. Comparison of hyperemic efficacy between central and peripheral venous adenosine infusion for fractional flow reserve measurement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5:401–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Leonardi RA, Townsend JC, Patel CA, et al. Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure affects measurement of fractional flow reserve. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2013;14:218–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Layland J, Wilson AM, Whitbourn RJ, et al. Impact of right atrial pressure on decision-making using fractional flow reserve (FFR) in elective percutaneous intervention. Int J Cardiol 2013;167:951–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Tarkin JM, Nijjer S, Sen S, et al. Hemodynamic response to intravenous adenosine and its effect on fractional flow reserve assessment: results of the Adenosine for the Functional Evaluation of Coronary Stenosis Severity (AFFECTS) study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6:654–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Echavarria-Pinto M, Petraco R, van de Hoef TP, et al. Fractional flow reserve and minimum Pd/Pa ratio during intravenous adenosine infusion: very similar but not always the same. EuroIntervention 2016;11:1013–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Kern MJ, Seto AH. Selecting the right fractional flow reserve in an unsteady state: keep it simple. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8:1028–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Sachdeva R, Agrawal M, Flynn SE, et al. Reversal of ischemia of donor artery myocardium after recanalization of a chronic total occlusion. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013;82:E453–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Ladwiniec A, Cunnington MS, Rossington J, et al. Collateral donor artery physiology and the influence of a chronic total occlusion on fractional flow reserve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8. pii: e002219.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Petraco R, Escaned J, Sen S, et al. Classification performance of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve in a clinical population of intermediate coronary stenoses: results of the ADVISE registry. EuroIntervention 2013;9:91–101.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Imperial College London. Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation. (DEFINEFLAIR). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02053038 (accessed 2 March 2016).
  55. Gotberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir I, et al. Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve guided intervention (iFR-SWEDEHEART): Rationale and design of a multicenter, prospective, registry-based randomized clinical trial. Am Heart J 2015;170:945–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. van de Hoef TP, van Lavieren MA, Damman P, et al. Physiological basis and long-term clinical outcome of discordance between fractional flow reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve in coronary stenoses of intermediate severity. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:301–11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Gould KL, Lipscomb K, Hamilton GW. Physiologic basis for assessing critical coronary stenosis. Instantaneous flow response and regional distribution during coronary hyperemia as measures of coronary flow reserve. Am J Cardiol 1974;33:87–94.
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. Meuwissen M, Siebes M, Chamuleau SAJ, et al. Hyperemic stenosis resistance index for evaluation of functional coronary lesion severity. Circulation 2002;106:441–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Meuwissen M, Chamuleau SA, Siebes M, et al. The prognostic value of combined intracoronary pressure and blood flow velocity measurements after deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008;71:291– 7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Petraco R, Sen S, Nijjer S, et al. Fractional flow reserve–guided revascularization: practical implications of a diagnostic gray zone and measurement variability on clinical decisions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6:222–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. van de Hoef TP, Nolte F, Damman P, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of combined intracoronary pressure and flow velocity information during baseline conditions: adenosine-free assessment of functional coronary lesion severity. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5:508–14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Abe M, Tomiyama H, Yoshida H, Doba N. Diastolic fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of moderate coronary artery stenoses: comparison with fractional flow reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve. Circulation 2000;102:2365–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Yanagisawa H, Chikamori T, Tanaka N, et al. Correlation between thallium-201 myocardial perfusion defects and the functional severity of coronary artery stenosis as assessed by pressure-derived myocardial fractional flow reserve. Circ J 2002;66:1105–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Morishima T, Chikamori T, Hatano T, et al. Correlation between myocardial uptake of technetium-99m-sestamibi and pressure-derived myocardial fractional flow reserve. J Cardiol 2004;43:155–63.
    PubMed
  65. Kobori Y, Tanaka N, Takazawa K, Yamashina A. Usefulness of fractional flow reserve in determining the indication of target lesion revascularization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005;65:355–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. van de Hoef TP, Meuwissen M, Escaned J, et al. Fractional flow reserve as a surrogate for inducible myocardial ischaemia. Nat Rev Cardiol 2013;10:439–52.
    Crossref | PubMed