Prevalence and Clinical Outcomes of Discordant Lesions Between Fractional Flow Reserve and Nonhyperemic Pressure Ratios in Clinical Practice: The J-PRIDE Registry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limited large-scale, real-world data exist on the prevalence and clinical impact of discordance between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs). METHODS: The J-PRIDE registry (Clinical Outcomes of Japanese Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Assessed by Resting Indices and Fractional Flow Reserve: A Prospective Multicenter Registry) prospectively enrolled 4304 lesions in 3200 patients from 20 Japanese centers. The lesions were classified into FFR+/NHPR−, FFR−/NHPR+, FFR+/NHPR+, or FFR−/NHPR groups according to cutoff values of 0.89 for NHPRs and 0.80 for FFR. The primary study end point was the cumulative 1-year incidence of target vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization) on a lesion basis. RESULTS: An NHPR cutoff value of 0.89, determined using online software, predicted an FFR of 0.80 across various NHPR types. Discordance between FFR and NHPRs was observed in 20% of lesions (FFR+/NHPR−, 11.2%; FFR−/NHPRs+, 8.8%). Revascularization was deferred in 42.9% and 88.4% of the FFR+/NHPR− and FFR−/NHPR+ groups, respectively. In deferred vessels, the FFR+/NHPR− and FFR−/NHPR+ groups showed a higher 1-year incidence of target vessel failure compared with the FFR−/NHPR− group (7.9% versus 5.5% versus 1.7%; for FFR+/NHPR−, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.89 [95% CI, 2.68–8.91]; P <0.001; for FFR−/NHPR+, aHR, 2.64 [95% CI, 1.49–4.69]; P <0.001). In revascularized vessels, the 1-year target vessel failure rate was numerically higher in the FFR−/NHPR+ group than in the FFR+/NHPR+ group (9.6% versus 3.4%; aHR, 2.27 [95% CI, 0.70–7.34]; P =0.17), although with similar outcomes between the FFR+/NHPR− and FFR+/NHPR+ groups (2.3% versus 3.4%; aHR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.37–2.38]; P =0.93). The FFR+/NHPR− group benefited from revascularization compared with medical treatment (aHR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.08–0.86]; P =0.027); the FFR−/NHPR+ group did not (aHR, 2.39 [95% CI, 0.62–9.21]; P =0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Discordance between FFR and NHPRs was noted in 20% of lesions, and discordant deferred lesions resulted in worse outcomes than concordant negative lesions. Although the outcomes after deferring revascularization were comparable between the FFR+/NHPR− and FFR−/NHPR+ lesions, only FFR+/NHPR− lesions showed a benefit from revascularization compared with medical treatment, suggesting that an FFR-guided strategy is superior to an NHPR-guided strategy in discordant lesions. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp ; Unique identifier: UMIN000038403.