Table 4.
Summary of main instantaneous wave free ratio trials
| Trial | Study population | Mean FFR value +/-SD | Mean iFR-value +/-SD | iFR cut-off | P value for non-inferiority | Correlation | Sensitivity % | Specificity % |
| DEFINE-FLAIR[13] | 2492 | 0.83 +/-0.09 | 0.91+/- 0.09 | 0.89 | < 0.001 | |||
| iFR SWEDEHEART[12] | 2037 | 0.82 +/-0.10 | 0.91+/- 0.10 | 0.89 | 0.007 | |||
| ADVISE study[59] | 131 | 0.72+/- 0.2 | 0.83 | 0.9 (P < 0.001) | 85 | 91 | ||
| VERIFY[65] | 206 | 0.83 | 0.67 | 54 (49-60) | 96 (95-99) | |||
| JUSTIFY-CFR[61] | 186 | 0.74+/- 0.17 | 0.81+/- 0.21 | 0.89 | 0.68 0.60-0.76 | 73 | 74 |
FFR: Fractional flow reserve; SD: Standard deviation. Table 4 summarize the primary studies evaluating the instantaneous wave free ratio (iFR). These trials have evaluated the correlation rate between iFR and FFR value and showed that iFR guided- percutaneous interventions (PCI) could be an alternative to FFR guided-PCI.