All Resting Physiological Indices May Not Be Equivalent　― Comparison Between the Diastolic Pressure Ratio and Resting Full-Cycle Ratio ―

抄録

Background:Differences between resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) and diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) have not been sufficiently discussed. This study aimed to investigate if there is a difference in diagnostic performance between RFR and dPR for the functional lesion assessment and to assess if there are specific characteristics for discordant revascularization decision-makings between RFR and dPR.

Methods and Results:A total of 936 intermediate lesions in 776 patients who underwent measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR), and the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) were retrospectively studied. Physiological indices were measured from anonymized pressure recordings at an independent core laboratory. Both RFR and dPR measures were highly correlated (r=0.997, P<0.001), with equivalent diagnostic performance relative to FFR-based decision-makings measured by using a dichotomous threshold of 0.80 (accuracy, 79.7% vs. 80.1%, respectively, P=0.960). The rate of diagnostic discordance was 4.7% (44/936), with no RFR−/dPR+ lesions observed. An overall significant difference in FFR and CFR values were detected among RFR/dPR-based classifications. The prevalence of positive studies was significantly higher for RFR than dPR (54.3% vs. 49.6%, respectively, P=0.047) when using the cut-off value of 0.89.

Conclusions:Both RFR and dPR were highly correlated, but the prevalence of positive studies was significantly different. The revascularization rate may differ significantly according to the resting index used.