Impact of Routine Fractional Flow Reserve Evaluation During Coronary Angiography on Management Strategy and Clinical Outcome

Use of coronary physiology to guide revascularization in clinical practice: results of the F(FR)2 registry

BACKGROUND

Despite the recommendation of coronary physiology to guide revascularization in angiographically intermediate stenoses without established correlation to ischemia, its uptake in clinical practice is slow.

AIMS

This study aimed to analyze the use of coronary physiology in clinical practice.

METHODS

Based on a multicenter registry (Fractional Flow Reserve Fax Registry, F(FR)2, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03055910), clinical use, consequences, and complications of coronary physiology were systematically analyzed.

RESULTS

F(FR)2 enrolled 2,000 patients with 3,378 intracoronary pressure measurements. Most measurements (96.8%) were performed in angiographically intermediate stenoses. Out of 3,238 lesions in which coronary physiology was used to guide revascularization, revascularization was deferred in 2,643 (78.2%) cases. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was the most common pressure index used (87.6%), with hyperemia induced by an intracoronary bolus of adenosine in 2,556 lesions (86.4%) and intravenous adenosine used for 384 measurements (13.0%). The route of adenosine administration did not influence FFR results (change-in-estimate -3.1% for regression model predicting FFR from diameter stenosis). Agreement with the subsequent revascularization decision was 93.4% for intravenous and 95.0% for intracoronary adenosine (p = 0.261). Coronary artery occlusion caused by the pressure wire was reported in two cases (0.1%) and dissection in three cases (0.2%), which was fatal once (0.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical practice, intracoronary pressure measurements are mostly used to guide revascularization decisions in angiographically intermediate stenoses. Intracoronary and intravenous administration of adenosine seem equally suited. While the rate of serious complications of wire-based intracoronary pressure measurements in clinical practice seems to be low, it is not negligible.

Serum exosomes miR-206 and miR-549a-3p as potential biomarkers of traumatic brain injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. However, effective diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic biomarkers are still lacking. Our research group previously revealed through high-throughput sequencing that the serum exosomes miR-133a-3p, miR-206, and miR-549a-3p differ significantly in severe TBI (sTBI), mild or moderate TBI (mTBI), and control groups. However, convincing experimental evidence is lacking. To solve this problem, we used qPCR in this study to further verify the expression levels of serum exosomes miR-133a-3p, miR-206 and miR-549a-3p in TBI patients. The results showed that the serum exosomes miR-206 and miR-549a-3p showed good predictive value as biomarkers of TBI. In addition, in order to further verify whether serum exosomes miR-206 and miR-549a-3p can be used as potential biomarkers in patients with TBI and to understand the mechanism of their possible effects, we further determined the contents of SOD, BDNF, VEGF, VEGI, NSE and S100β in the serum of TBI patients. The results showed that, serum exosomes miR-206 and miR-549a-3p showed good correlation with BDNF, NSE and S100β. In conclusion, serum exosomes miR-206 and miR-549a-3p have the potential to serve as potential biomarkers in patients with TBI.

What About All the Recent "Negative" FFR Trials?

During the past 30 years, fractional flow reserve (FFR) has moved from animal models to class IA recommendations in guidelines. However, the FLOWER-MI, RIPCORD-2, FUTURE, and FAME 3 trials in 2021 were "negative"-has FFR exceeded its expiration date? We critically examine these randomized trials in order to draw insights not just about FFR but also about study design and interpretation. Are all randomized trials created equal? No, rather we must focus on discordant decisions between angiography and FFR and highlight clinical endpoints that can be improved by percutaneous coronary intervention instead of medical therapy.

Prognostic differences between physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and optimal medical therapy in coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Intracoronary physiology, particularly fractional flow reserve (FFR), has been used as a guide for revascularization for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The optimal treatment in the physiological grey-zone area has been unclear and remains subject to ongoing debate.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing the prognostic effect of percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI) and optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with CAD. Studies were identified by medical literature databases. The outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and its components, death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization.

Results

A total of 16 studies with 27,451 patients were included. The pooled analysis demonstrated that PCI was associated with a prognostic advantage over OMT in patients with FFR value ≤0.80 (RR: 0.64, 95 % CI: 0.45-0.90, p < 0.01). Patients with an FFR value >0.80 were shown to benefit more from OMT (RR 1.38, 95 % CI 1.24-1.53, p < 0.01). The analysis also showed that there was no significant difference in MACE in the grey-zone area (FFR 0.75-0.80) (RR 0.64, 95 % CI: 0.35-1.16, p = 0.14), but a significant reduction in repeat revascularization (RR 0.54, 95 % CI, 0.31-0.91, p < 0.01) when patients were treated with PCI.

Conclusions

Among patients with CAD and FFR values >0.80, OMT was associated with favorable outcomes over PCI in reducing the risk of MACE. However, among patients with FFR values ≤0.80, revascularization was superior in terms of reducing MACE. The available evidence supports the guideline-recommended use of an FFR cut-off of ≤0.80.

Changes in the treatment strategy following intracoronary pressure wire in a contemporaneous real-life cohort of patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. Results from a nationwide registry

BACKGROUND

Intracoronary pressure wire is useful to guide revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease.

AIMS

To evaluate changes in diagnosis (coronary artery disease extent), treatment strategy and clinical results after intracoronary pressure wire study in real-life patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis.

METHODS

Observational, prospective and multicenter registry of patients in whom pressure wire was performed. The extent of coronary artery disease and the treatment strategy based on clinical and angiographic criteria were recorded before and after intracoronary pressure wire guidance. 12-month incidence of MACE (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or new revascularization of the target lesion) was assessed.

RESULTS

1414 patients with 1781 lesions were included. Complications related to the procedure were reported in 42 patients (3.0 %). The extent of coronary artery disease changed in 771 patients (54.5 %). There was a change in treatment strategy in 779 patients (55.1 %) (18.0 % if medical treatment; 68.8 % if PCI; 58.9 % if surgery (p < 0.001 for PCI vs medical treatment; p = 0.041 for PCI vs CABG; p < 0.001 for medical treatment vs CABG)). In patients with PCI as the initial strategy, the change in strategy was associated with a lower rate of MACE (4.6 % vs 8.2 %, p = 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of intracoronary pressure wire was safe and led to the reclassification of the extent of coronary disease and change in the treatment strategy in more than half of the cases, especially in patients with PCI as initial treatment.

What About All the Recent "Negative" FFR Trials?

During the past 30 years, fractional flow reserve (FFR) has moved from animal models to class IA recommendations in guidelines. However, the FLOWER-MI, RIPCORD-2, FUTURE, and FAME 3 trials in 2021 were "negative"-has FFR exceeded its expiration date? We critically examine these randomized trials in order to draw insights not just about FFR but also about study design and interpretation. Are all randomized trials created equal? No, rather we must focus on discordant decisions between angiography and FFR and highlight clinical endpoints that can be improved by percutaneous coronary intervention instead of medical therapy.

Comparative analysis of instantaneous wave-free ratio and quantitative real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography for the assessment of myocardial perfusion

Background and hypothesis

The field of coronary artery physiology is developing rapidly and changing the practice of interventional cardiology. A new functional evaluation technique using the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) has become an alternative to fractional flow reserve. Future research studies need to determine whether physiological indicators play a role in evaluating myocardial perfusion in the catheter room.

Materials and methods

Thirty-eight patients scheduled for coronary angiography and iFR evaluation underwent a real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography (RT-MCE) examination at rest. The myocardial perfusion parameters (A, β, and A × β) on the myocardial perfusion curve were quantitatively analyzed using Q-Lab software. Coronary angiography and iFR assessment were completed within 1 week after the RT-MCE examination in all patients. Correlation analysis was used to identify iFR- and MCE-related indicators. The sensitivity and specificity of iFR in the quantitative detection of coronary microcirculation were obtained.

Results

The correlation coefficients between iFR and A, β, and A × β were 0.81, 0.66, and 0.82, respectively. The cut-off value for iFR was 0.85 for microvascular ischemia detection, while the sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of myocardial perfusion were 90.7 and 89.9%, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve area for iFR was 0.946 in the segments related to myocardial blood flow.

Conclusion

The iFR is an effective tool for detecting myocardial microcirculation perfusion, with satisfactory diagnostic performance and a demonstrated role in physiological indices used for the perfusion assessment.

Three-dimensional QCA-based vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) in Heart Team decision-making: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of three-vessel three-dimensional (3D) quantitative coronary angiography (QCA)-based fractional flow reserve (FFR) computation in patients discussed within the Heart Team in whom the treatment decision was based on angiography alone, and to evaluate the concordance between 3D QCA-based vessel FFR (vFFR)-confirmed functional lesion significance and revascularisation strategy as proposed by the Heart Team.

DESIGN

Retrospective, cohort.

SETTING

3D QCA-based FFR indices have not yet been evaluated in the context of Heart Team decision-making; consecutive patients from six institutions were screened for eligibility and three-vessel vFFR was computed by blinded analysts.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive patients with chronic coronary syndrome or unstable angina referred for Heart Team consultation. Exclusion criteria involved: presentation with acute myocardial infarction (MI), significant valve disease, left ventricle ejection fraction <30%, inadequate quality of angiogram precluding vFFR computation in all three epicardial coronary arteries (ie, absence of a minimum of two angiographic projections with views of at least 30° apart, substantial foreshortening/overlap of the vessel, poor contrast medium injection, ostial lesions, chronic total occlusions).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Discordance between vFFR-confirmed lesion significance and revascularisation was assessed as the primary outcome measure. Rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiac death, MI and clinically driven revascularisation were reported.

RESULTS

Of a total of 1003 patients were screened for eligibility, 416 patients (age 65.6±10.6, 71.2% male, 53% stable angina) were included. The most important reason for screening failure was insufficient quality of the angiogram (43%). Discordance between vFFR confirmed lesion significance and revascularisation was found in 124/416 patients (29.8%) corresponding to 149 vessels (46/149 vessels (30.9%) were reclassified as significant and 103/149 vessels (69.1%) as non-significant by vFFR). Over a median of 962 days, the cumulative incidence of MACE was 29.7% versus 18.5% in discordant versus concordant patients (p=0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

vFFR computation is feasible in around 40% of the patients referred for Heart Team discussion, a limitation that is mostly based on insufficient quality of the angiogram. Three vessel vFFR screening indicated discordance between vFFR confirmed lesion significance and revascularisation in 29.8% of the patients.

Adoption and patterns of use of invasive physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in a large cohort of 40821 real-world procedures over a 12-year period

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Use of invasive physiological assessment in patients with coronary artery disease varies widely and is perceived to be low. We aimed to examine adoption rates as well as patterns and determinants of use in an unselected population undergoing invasive coronary angiography over a long time frame.

METHODS

We retrospectively determined the per-procedure prevalence of physiological assessment in 40821 coronary cases performed between 2007 and 2018 in two large-volume centers. Adoption was examined according to procedure type and patient- and operator-related variables. Its association with relevant scientific landmarks, such as the release of clinical trial results and practice guidelines, was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall adoption was low, ranging from 0.6% in patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography due to underlying valve disease, to 6% in the setting of stable coronary artery disease (CAD); it was 3.1% in patients sustaining an acute coronary syndrome. Of scientific landmarks, FAME 1, the long-term results of FAME 2 and the 2014 European myocardial revascularization guidelines were associated with changes in practice. Publication of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) trials had no influence on adoption rates, except for a higher proportion of iFR use. In 42.9% of stable CAD patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention there was no objective non-invasive evidence of ischemia, nor was physiological assessment performed. Younger operator age (4.5% vs. 4.0% vs. 0.9% for ages <40, 40-55 and >55 years, respectively; p<0.001) and later time of procedure during the day (2.9% between 6 and 8 p.m. vs. 4.4% at other times) were independent correlates of use of invasive physiology.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the low use of invasive physiology in routine practice. The availability of resting indices did not increase adoption. Strategies are warranted to promote guideline implementation and to improve patient care and clinical outcomes.

Adoption and patterns of use of invasive physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in a large cohort of 40821 real-world procedures over a 12-year period

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Use of invasive physiological assessment in patients with coronary artery disease varies widely and is perceived to be low. We aimed to examine adoption rates as well as patterns and determinants of use in an unselected population undergoing invasive coronary angiography over a long time frame.

METHODS

We retrospectively determined the per-procedure prevalence of physiological assessment in 40821 coronary cases performed between 2007 and 2018 in two large-volume centers. Adoption was examined according to procedure type and patient- and operator-related variables. Its association with relevant scientific landmarks, such as the release of clinical trial results and practice guidelines, was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall adoption was low, ranging from 0.6% in patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography due to underlying valve disease, to 6% in the setting of stable coronary artery disease (CAD); it was 3.1% in patients sustaining an acute coronary syndrome. Of scientific landmarks, FAME 1, the long-term results of FAME 2 and the 2014 European myocardial revascularization guidelines were associated with changes in practice. Publication of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) trials had no influence on adoption rates, except for a higher proportion of iFR use. In 42.9% of stable CAD patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention there was no objective non-invasive evidence of ischemia, nor was physiological assessment performed. Younger operator age (4.5% vs. 4.0% vs. 0.9% for ages <40, 40-55 and >55 years, respectively; p<0.001) and later time of procedure during the day (2.9% between 6 and 8 p.m. vs. 4.4% at other times) were independent correlates of use of invasive physiology.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the low use of invasive physiology in routine practice. The availability of resting indices did not increase adoption. Strategies are warranted to promote guideline implementation and to improve patient care and clinical outcomes.

Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography coronary angiography in the assessment and management of stable chest pain: the FORECAST randomized trial

Aims 

Fractional flow reserve (FFR_CT) using computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) determines both the presence of coronary artery disease and vessel-specific ischaemia. We tested whether an evaluation strategy based on FFR_CT would improve economic and clinical outcomes compared with standard care.

Methods and results 

Overall, 1400 patients with stable chest pain in 11 centres were randomized to initial testing with CTCA with selective FFR_CT (experimental group) or standard clinical care pathways (standard group). The primary endpoint was total cardiac costs at 9 months. Secondary endpoints were angina status, quality of life, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and use of invasive coronary angiography. Randomized groups were similar at baseline. Most patients had an initial CTCA: 439 (63%) in the standard group vs. 674 (96%) in the experimental group, 254 of whom (38%) underwent FFR_CT. Mean total cardiac costs were higher by £114 (+8%) in the experimental group, with a 95% confidence interval from −£112 (−8%) to +£337 (+23%), though the difference was not significant (P = 0.10). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events did not differ significantly (10.2% in the experimental group vs. 10.6% in the standard group) and angina and quality of life improved to a similar degree over follow-up in both randomized groups. Invasive angiography was reduced significantly in the experimental group (19% vs. 25%, P = 0.01).

Conclusion 

A strategy of CTCA with selective FFR_CT in patients with stable angina did not differ significantly from standard clinical care pathways in cost or clinical outcomes, but did reduce the use of invasive coronary angiography.

Usefulness of Routine Fractional Flow Reserve for Clinical Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes

Importance

Approximately one-third of patients considered for coronary revascularization have diabetes, which is a major determinant of clinical outcomes, often influencing the choice of the revascularization strategy. The usefulness of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide treatment in this population is understudied and has been questioned.

Objective

To evaluate the usefulness and rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of integrating FFR in management decisions for patients with diabetes who undergo coronary angiography.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used data from the PRIME-FFR study derived from the merger of the POST-IT study (Portuguese Study on the Evaluation of FFR-Guided Treatment of Coronary Disease [March 2012-November 2013]) and R3F study (French Study of FFR Integrated Multicenter Registries Implementation of FFR in Routine Practice [October 2008-June 2010]), 2 prospective multicenter registries that shared a common design. A population of all-comers for whom angiography disclosed ambiguous lesions was analyzed for rates, patterns, and outcomes associated with management reclassification, including revascularization deferral, in patients with vs without diabetes. Data analysis was performed from June to August 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization (MACE) at 1 year.

Results

Among 1983 patients (1503 [77%] male; mean [SD] age, 65 [10] years), 701 had diabetes, and FFR was performed for 1.4 lesions per patient (58.2% of lesions in the left anterior descending artery; mean [SD] stenosis, 56% [11%]; mean [SD] FFR, 0.81 [0.01]). Reclassification by FFR was high and similar in patients with and without diabetes (41.2% vs 37.5%, P = .13), but reclassification from medical treatment to revascularization was more frequent in the former (142 of 342 [41.5%] vs 230 of 730 [31.5%], P = .001). There was no statistical difference between the 1-year rates of MACE in reclassified (9.7%) and nonreclassified patients (12.0%) (P = .37). Among patients with diabetes, FFR-based deferral identified patients with a lower risk of MACE at 12 months (25 of 296 [8.4%]) compared with those undergoing revascularization (47 of 257 [13.1%]) (P = .04), and the rate was of the same magnitude of the observed rate among deferred patients without diabetes (7.9%, P = .87). Status of insulin treatment had no association with outcomes. Patients (6.6% of the population) in whom FFR was disregarded had the highest MACE rates regardless of diabetes status.

Conclusions and Relevance

Routine integration of FFR for the management of coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes may be associated with a high rate of treatment reclassification. Management strategies guided by FFR, including revascularization deferral, may be useful for patients with diabetes.

Comparison of diagnostic performance between quantitative flow ratio, non-hyperemic pressure indices and fractional flow reserve

Background

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an estimate of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and is derived from 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography. The DILEMMA score is an angiographic technique developed to predict FFR. Unlike other diastolic indices such as instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and dPR_25-75, neither QFR nor DILEMMA score require pressure wires. This study sought to compare the diagnostic performance of QFR, diastolic indices and DILEMMA score to predict FFR.

Methods

Between January 2010 and December 2013, patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography and FFR assessments were retrospectively studied. iFR and dPR were derived from FFR pressure tracings. QFR was computed using commercial software.

Results

Eighty-five lesions (25% FFR significant) were included in this study. Median FFR was 0.88 (0.81-0.92). QFR (r_s=0.801), iFR (r_s=0.710), dPR (r_s=0.716), dPR_25-75 (r_s=0.715) and DILEMMA score (r_s=-0.623) significantly correlated with FFR (P<0.001). QFR ≤0.8 had a specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95%, 86%, 86% and 95% respectively of predicting significant FFR (P<0.001). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed the AUC to predict significant FFR for QFR (0.947), iFR (0.880), dPR (0.883), dPR_25-75 (0.880) and DILEMMA score (0.916) were not significantly different. However, QFR was a better predictor of FFR than iFR (0.947 vs. 0.770, P<0.01).

Conclusions

QFR had excellent correlation and accuracy as measured against FFR. When compared to other diastolic indices and DILEMMA score, QFR performed at least as well as the other indices. QFR predicts FFR better than it predicts iFR. QFR is a convenient tool to assess significance of coronary stenosis and a reliable alternative to pressure-wire based indices. Prospective studies are required to investigate the performance and cost-effectiveness of QFR when independently used to guide clinical decision making.

Technical aspects and limitations of fractional flow reserve measurement

BACKGROUND

The only indication for coronary revascularization is elimination of ischaemia. Invasive hemodynamic methods (fractional flow reserve - FFR and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are superior to coronary angiography in detection of lesions causing myocardial ischaemia. Current European guidelines for myocardial revascularization recommend using of FFR for detection of functional assessment of lesions severity in category IA and number of these procedures increases. However, routine usage of these methods requires knowledge of technical requirements and limitations.

AIM

The aim of the study is to summarise good clinical practice for FFR and iFR measurements with explanation of possible technical challenges, that are necessary for increasing of measurement accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors describe frequent technical mistakes and malpractice during invasive assessment of lesion severity in coronary arteries.

Optimal Revascularization Threshold of Fractional Flow Reserve and its Effect on Outcomes: Perspectives From a High-Volume Center in China

This study aimed to investigate the favorable revascularization threshold for fractional flow reserve (FFR) in daily practice. Between March 2013 and March 2017 in a high-volume center in China, 903 patients with 1210 lesions underwent coronary intervention with adjunctive FFR and were consecutively enrolled. The mean FFR was 0.80 ± 0.11, revascularization was deferred for 68% of lesions, and the median follow-up period was 21 months. For lesions with an FFR > 0.80, deferral of revascularization appeared safe. In contrast, for lesions with an FFR ≤ 0.80, deferral of revascularization was associated with a greater risk of target lesion failure (TLF) than revascularization (hazard ratio [HR] 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.02-10.06, P < .001). For lesions with an FFR value in the gray-zone (0.76-0.80), medical treatment alone was less effective than revascularization ( P = .020). For deferred lesions, FFR was an independent predictor for the future risk of TLF, when data were categorized (HR [FFR ≤ 0.75 vs FFR ≥ 0.86] 3.35, 95% CI 1.13-9.97, P = .030; HR [FFR 0.76-0.80 vs FFR ≥ 0.86] 4.01, 95% CI 1.73-9.31, P = .001) or continuous (HR 0.004, 95% CI 0.00-0.13, P = .002). Thus, an FFR value of 0.80 appears to be the optimal threshold for decision-making regarding revascularization and risk stratification.

Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Strategy in Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

There are limited data on the prognosis of deferral of lesion treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) based on fractional flow reserve (FFR).

Objectives

To provide a systematic review of the current evidence on the prognosis of deferred lesions in ACS patients compared with deferred lesions in non-ACS patients, on the basis of FFR.

Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 2000 and September 2017 that compared prognosis of deferred revascularization of lesions on the basis of FFR in ACS patients compared with non-ACS patients. We conducted a pooled relative risk meta-analysis of four primary outcomes: mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and target-vessel revascularization (TVR).

Results

We identified 7 studies that included a total of 5,107 patients. A pooled meta-analysis showed no significant difference in mortality (relative risk [RR] = 1.44; 95% CI, 0.9-2.4), CV mortality (RR = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.4-4.3) and TVR (RR = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.9-2.3) after deferral of revascularization based on FFR between ACS and non-ACS patients. Such deferral was associated with significant additional risk of MI (RR = 1.83; 95% CI = 1.4-2.4) in ACS patients.

Conclusion

The prognostic value of FFR in ACS setting is not as good as in stable patients. The results demonstrate an increased risk of MI but not of mortality, CV mortality, and TVR in ACS patients.

Impact of Routine Fractional Flow Reserve on Management Decision and 1-Year Clinical Outcome of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: PRIME-FFR (Insights From the POST-IT [Portuguese Study on the Evaluation of FFR-Guided Treatment of Coronary Disease] and R3F [French FFR Registry] Integrated Multicenter Registries - Implementation of FFR [Fractional Flow Reserve] in Routine Practice)

BACKGROUND

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is not firmly established as a guide to treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Primary goals were to evaluate the impact of integrating FFR on management decisions and on clinical outcome of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angiography, as compared with patients with stable coronary artery disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

R3F (French FFR Registry) and POST-IT (Portuguese Study on the Evaluation of FFR-Guided Treatment of Coronary Disease), sharing a common design, were pooled as PRIME-FFR (Insights From the POST-IT and R3F Integrated Multicenter Registries - Implementation of FFR in Routine Practice). Investigators prospectively defined management strategy based on angiography before performing FFR. Final decision after FFR and 1-year clinical outcome were recorded. From 1983 patients, in whom FFR was prospectively used to guide treatment, 533 sustained ACS (excluding acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction). In ACS, FFR was performed in 1.4 lesions per patient, mostly in left anterior descending (58%), with a mean percent stenosis of 58±12% and a mean FFR of 0.82±0.09. In patients with ACS, reclassification by FFR was high and similar to those with non-ACS (38% versus 39%; P=NS). The pattern of reclassification was different, however, with less patients with ACS reclassified from revascularization to medical treatment compared with those with non-ACS (P=0.01). In ACS, 1-year outcome of patients reclassified based on FFR (FFR against angiography) was as good as that of nonreclassified patients (FFR concordant with angiography), with no difference in major cardiovascular event (8.0% versus 11.6%; P=0.20) or symptoms (92.3% versus 94.8% angina free; P=0.25). Moreover, FFR-based deferral to medical treatment was as safe in patients with ACS as in patients with non-ACS (major cardiovascular event, 8.0% versus 8.5%; P=0.83; revascularization, 3.8% versus 5.9%; P=0.24; and freedom from angina, 93.6% versus 90.2%; P=0.35). These findings were confirmed in ACS explored at the culprit lesion. In patients (6%) in whom the information derived from FFR was disregarded, a dire outcome was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine integration of FFR into the decision-making process of ACS patients with obstructive coronary artery disease is associated with a high reclassification rate of treatment (38%). A management strategy guided by FFR, divergent from that suggested by angiography, including revascularization deferral, is safe in ACS.

Fractional Flow Reserve and Cardiac Events in Coronary Artery Disease: Data From a Prospective IRIS-FFR Registry (Interventional Cardiology Research Incooperation Society Fractional Flow Reserve)

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the prognosis of deferred and revascularized coronary stenoses after fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement to assess its revascularization threshold in clinical practice.

METHODS

The IRIS-FFR registry (Interventional Cardiology Research In-cooperation Society Fractional Flow Reserve) prospectively enrolled 5846 patients with ≥1coronary lesion with FFR measurement. Revascularization was deferred in 6468 lesions and performed in 2165 lesions after FFR assessment. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization) at a median follow-up of 1.9 years and analyzed on a per-lesion basis. A marginal Cox model accounted for correlated data in patients with multiple lesions, and a model to predict per-lesion outcomes was adjusted for confounding factors.

RESULTS

For deferred lesions, the risk of major adverse cardiac events demonstrated a significant, inverse relationship with FFR (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.08; P<0.001). However, this relationship was not observed in revascularized lesions (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.02; P=0.70). For lesions with FFR ≥0.76, the risk of major adverse cardiac events was not significantly different between deferred and revascularized lesions. Conversely, in lesions with FFR ≤0.75, the risk of major adverse cardiac events was significantly lower in revascularized lesions than in deferred lesions (for FFR 0.71-0.75, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.89; P=0.021; for FFR ≤0.70, adjusted hazard ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84; P=0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

This large, prospective registry showed that the FFR value was linearly associated with the risk of cardiac events in deferred lesions. In addition, revascularization for coronary artery stenosis with a low FFR (≤0.75) was associated with better outcomes than the deferral, whereas for a stenosis with a high FFR (≥0.76), medical treatment would be a reasonable and safe treatment strategy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01366404.