Resting Full-Cycle Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve: A SWEDEHEART-Registry-Based Comparison of Two Physiological...

The adenosine-requiring physiological index fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold-standard method for determining the significance of intermediate lesions, while the resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) is a novel nonhyperaemic index without the need for adenosine administration. The aim of this study was to investigate the degree of concordance between RFR and FFR in indicating the need for revascularisation in patients with intermediate coronary lesions. This was a retrospective, registry-based study utilising data from the SWEDEHEART registry. Patients treated at Ryhov County Hospital in Jönköping, Sweden, between the 1^st of January 2020 and the 30^th of September 2021, were included. The degree of correlation and concordance between RFR and FFR was determined, both when used with a single cut-off (significant stenosis if RFR ≤0.89) and with a hybrid approach (significant stenosis if RFR ≤0.85, not significant if RFR ≥0.94, and FFR measurement when RFR was in the grey zone 0.86-0.93). The study population consisted of 143 patients with 200 lesions. The overall correlation between FFR and RFR was significant (r = 0.715, R² = 0.511, p ≤ 0.01). A strong correlation was seen for lesions in the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and the left circumflex artery (LCX) (r = 0.748 and 0.742, respectively, both p ≤ 0.01), while the correlation in the right coronary artery (RCA) was moderate (r = 0.524, p ≤ 0.01). The overall concordance between FFR and RFR using a single cut-off was 79.0%. With a hybrid cut-off approach, the degree of concordance was 91%, with no need of adenosine in 50.5% of the lesions. In conclusion, there was a strong correlation and a high degree of concordance between FFR and RFR in determining the significance of a stenosis. The use of a hybrid approach could improve the identification of physiologically significant stenoses while minimising the use of adenosine.