Search

Background--The predictive value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) measured immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent placement has not been prospectively investigated. We investigated the potential of post-PCI FFR measurements to predict clinical outcome in patients from FAME 1 and 2 trials (Fractional Flow Reserve or Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation). Methods and Results--All patients of FAME 1 and FAME 2 who had post-PCI FFR measurement were included. The primary outcome was vessel-oriented composite end point at 2 years, defined as vessel-related cardiovascular death, vessel-related spontaneous myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization. Eight hundred thirty-eight vessels in 639 patients were analyzed. Baseline FFR values did not differ between vessels with versus without vessel-oriented composite end point (0.66±0.11 versus 0.63±0.14, respectively; P=0.207). Post-PCI FFR was significantly lower in vessels with vessel-oriented composite end point (0.88±0.06 versus 0.90±0.06, respectively; P=0.019). Comparing the 2-year outcome of lower and upper tertiles of post-PCI FFR significant difference was found favoring upper tertile in terms of overall vessel-oriented composite end point (9.2% versus 3.8%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.08; P=0.037) and target vessel revascularization (7.0% versus 2.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.46; P=0.037). When adjusted to sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, target vessel, serial stenosis, and baseline percentage diameter stenosis, a strong trend was preserved in terms of target vessel revascularization (harzard ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-2.46; P=0.066), favoring the upper tertile. Post-PCI FFR of 0.92 was found to have the highest diagnostic accuracy; however, the positive likelihood ratio remained low (<1.4). Conclusions--A higher post-PCI FFR value is associated with a better vessel-related outcome. However, its predictive value is too low to advocate its use as a surrogate clinical end point. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement of intermediate coronary stenoses is recommended by guidelines when demonstration of ischemia by noninvasive testing is unavailable. The study aims to evaluate the penetration of this recommendation into current thinking about revascularization strategies for stable coronary artery disease.International Survey on Interventional Strategy was conducted via a web-based platform. First, participants’ experiences in interventional cardiology were queried. Second, 5 complete angiograms were provided, presenting only focal intermediate stenoses. FFR and quantitative coronary angiography values were known; however, remained undisclosed. Determination of stenosis significance was asked for each lesion. In cases of uncertainty, the most appropriate adjunctive invasive diagnostic method among quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, or FFR needed to be selected. International Survey on Interventional Strategy was taken by 495 participants who provided 4421 lesion evaluations. In 3158 (71%) decisions, participants relied solely on angiographic appearance that was discordant in 47% with the known FFR, using 0.80 as cutoff value. The use of FFR and imaging modalities was requested in 21% and 8%, respectively. Comparing 4 groups of participants according to the experience in FFR, angiogram-based decisions were less frequent with increasing experience (77% versus 72% versus 69% versus 67%, respectively; P<0.001). As a result, requests for FFR were more frequent (14% versus 19% versus 24% versus 28%, respectively; P<0.001) and rates of discordant decisions decreased (51% versus 49% versus 47% versus 43%, respectively; P<0.022).The findings confirm that, even when all potential external constraints are virtually eliminated, visual estimation continues to dominate the treatment decisions for intermediate stenoses, indicative of a worrisome disconnect between recommendations and current practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background—: Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has been associated with lower number of graft anastomoses, lower rate of on-pump surgery, and higher graft patency rate as compared with angiography-guided CABG surgery. However, no clinical benefit has been reported to date. Methods and Results—: Consecutive patients (n=627) treated by CABG between 2006 and 2010 were retrospectively included. In 198 patients, at least 1 stenosis was grafted according to FFR (FFR-guided group), whereas in 429 patients all stenoses were grafted based on angiography (angiography-guided group). The 2 coprimary end points were overall death or myocardial infarction and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) up to 6-year follow-up. In the FFR-guided group, patients were significantly younger (66 [57–73] versus 70 [63–76]; P<0.001), more often male (82% versus 72%; P=0.008), and less often diabetic (21% versus 30%; P=0.023). Clinical follow-up (median, 85 [66–104] months) was analyzed in 396 patients after 1:1 propensity-score matching for these 3 variables. The rate of overall death or myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the FFR-guided (n=31 [16%] versus n=49 [25%]; hazard ratio, 0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.38–0.93]; P=0.020) as compared with the angiography-guided group. Major adverse cardiovascular events rate was also numerically lower in the FFR-guided than in the angiography-guided group (n=42 [21%] versus n=52 [26%]; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.51–1.16]; P=0.21). Conclusions—: FFR-guided CABG is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of overall death or myocardial infarction at 6-year follow-up as compared with angiography-guided CABG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]