Sex Differences in Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Revascularization Strategy.

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Identifiers

Publication date

Start date of the public exhibition period

End date of the public exhibition period

Advisors

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Metrics
Google Scholar
Share
Export

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate sex differences in procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)- and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategies. Background: While iFR-guided strategy has shown a lower revascularization rate than FFR-guided strategy without the difference in clinical outcomes between the 2 strategies, the influence of male versus female sex has not yet been fully investigated. Methods: This is a post-hoc analysis of DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate stenosis to guide Revascularization) study, in which 601 women and 1,891 men were randomized to iFR- or FFR-guided strategy. iFR≤0.89 and FFR≤0.80 were used as criteria for revascularization. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. Results: Among the entire population, women had lower number of functionally significant lesions per patient (0.31 ± 0.51 vs. 0.43 ±0.59, p < 0.001) and less frequently underwent revascularization than men (42.1% vs. 53.1%, p < 0.001). There was no sex difference in iFR value (0.91 ± 0.09 vs. 0.91 ± 0. 10, p = 0.442). However, FFR value was lower in men than in women (0.83 ± 0.09 vs. 0.85 ± 0.10, p = 0.001). In men, FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than iFR-guided strategy (57.1% vs. 49.3%, p = 0.001). There was no difference in revascularization rate between iFR- and FFR-guided strategies in women (41.4% vs. 42.6%, p = 0.757). At 1 year, MACE rate was not different according to sex (women vs. men, 5.49% vs. 6.77%, adjusted HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53-1.28, p = 0.380). There was no difference in MACE rates between iFR- and FFR-guided strategies in both women (5.36% vs. 5.61%, adjusted HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.50-2.43, p = 0.805) and men (6.55% vs. 7.00%, adjusted HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66-1.46, p = 0.919). Conclusions: FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than iFR-guided strategy in men, but not in women. However, iFR- and FFR-guided treatment strategies showed comparable clinical outcome, regardless of sex.

Doctoral program

Description

Citation