+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Diagnostic classification of the instantaneous wave-free ratio is equivalent to fractional flow reserve and is not improved with adenosine administration. Results of CLARIFY (Classification Accuracy of Pressure-Only Ratios Against Indices Using Flow Study).

      Journal of the American College of Cardiology

      Adenosine, diagnostic use, administration & dosage, Vasodilator Agents, physiology, Vascular Resistance, ROC Curve, pathology, Pericardium, Myocardial Contraction, Middle Aged, Microcirculation, Male, Infusions, Intravenous, physiopathology, Hyperemia, Humans, Hemodynamics, Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial, Female, diagnosis, Coronary Stenosis, Coronary Circulation, Blood Flow Velocity, Aged

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          This study sought to determine if adenosine administration is required for the pressure-only assessment of coronary stenoses. The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a vasodilator-free pressure-only measure of the hemodynamic severity of a coronary stenosis comparable to fractional flow reserve (FFR) in diagnostic categorization. In this study, we used hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR), a combined pressure-and-flow index, as an arbiter to determine when iFR and FFR disagree which index is most representative of the hemodynamic significance of the stenosis. We then test whether administering adenosine significantly improves diagnostic performance of iFR. In 51 vessels, intracoronary pressure and flow velocity was measured distal to the stenosis at rest and during adenosine-mediated hyperemia. The iFR (at rest and during adenosine administration [iFRa]), FFR, HSR, baseline, and hyperemic microvascular resistance were calculated using automated algorithms. When iFR and FFR disagreed (4 cases, or 7.7% of the study population), HSR agreed with iFR in 50% of cases and with FFR in 50% of cases. Differences in magnitude of microvascular resistance did not influence diagnostic categorization; iFR, iFRa, and FFR had equally good diagnostic agreement with HSR (receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve 0.93 iFR vs. 0.94 iFRa and 0.96 FFR, p = 0.48). iFR and FFR had equivalent agreement with classification of coronary stenosis severity by HSR. Further reduction in resistance by the administration of adenosine did not improve diagnostic categorization, indicating that iFR can be used as an adenosine-free alternative to FFR. Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

          Related collections

          Author and article information



          Comment on this article

          Similar content 90

          Cited by 39