Search

Objective: To investigate the impact of invasive functional guidance for coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) on graft failure., Background: Data on the impact of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in guiding CABG are still limited., Methods: Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis were performed. Primary objective was the risk of graft failure, stratified by FFR. Risk estimates are reported as odds ratios (ORs) derived from the aggregated data using random-effects models. Individual patient data were analyzed using mixed effect model to assess relationship between FFR and graft failure. This meta-analysis is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020180444)., Results: Four prospective studies comprising 503 patients referred for CABG, with 1471 coronaries, assessed by FFR were included. Graft status was available for 1039 conduits at median of 12.0 [IQR 6.6; 12.0] months. Risk of graft failure was higher in vessels with preserved FFR (OR 5.74, 95% CI 1.71-19.29). Every 0.10 FFR units decrease in the coronaries was associated with 56% risk reduction of graft failure (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.59). FFR cut-off to predict graft failure was 0.79., Conclusion: Surgical grafting of coronaries with functionally nonsignificant stenoses was associated with higher risk of graft failure., (© 2021 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aims: In the randomized GRAFFITI trial, surgeons drew their strategy based on coronary angiography. When patients were randomized to fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guidance, surgeons were informed of the FFR values and asked to redraw their strategy. The aim of this study was to investigate the changes induced by FFR knowledge., Methods and Results: The intended and performed strategy (before and after FFR) were compared. Among 172 patients, 84 with 300 lesions were randomized to the FFR-guided group. The intended strategy was to bypass 236 stenoses:108 with a venous and 128 with an arterial graft. After disclosing FFR, a change in strategy occurred in 64 lesions (21.3%) of 48 (55%) patients. Among 64 lesions for which the intended strategy was medical therapy, 16 (25%) were bypassed after disclosing FFR. The number of procedures with >1 venous graft planned was significantly reduced from 37 to 27 patients (p = .031). The proportion of on-pump surgery was significantly reduced from 71 to 61 patients (p = .006). The rates of clinical events at 1 year were similar between patients with or without at least one change in strategy., Discussion: FFR-guided CABG is associated with a simplified surgical procedure in 55% of the patients, with similar clinical outcomes., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: In diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has shown long-term benefits over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Physiology-guided PCI has shown to improve clinical outcomes in multivessel coronary artery disease, though its impact in diabetic patients has never been investigated. We evaluated long-term clinical outcomes of diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease treated with fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI compared with CABG., Methods: From 2010 to 2018, 4622 diabetic patients undergoing coronary angiography were screened for inclusion. The inclusion criterion was the presence of at least 2-vessel disease defined as with diameter stenosis ≥50%, in which at least 1 intermediate stenosis (diameter stenosis, 30%-70%) was treated or deferred according to FFR. Inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was used to account for baseline differences with a contemporary cohort of patients treated with CABG. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, or stroke., Results: A total of 418 patients were included in the analysis. Among them, 209 patients underwent CABG and 209 FFR-guided PCI. At 5 years, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was higher in the FFR-guided PCI versus the CABG group (44.5% versus 31.9%; hazard ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.15-2.22]; P =0.005). No difference was found in the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (28.8% versus 27.5%; hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.72-1.53]; P =0.81). Repeat revascularization was more frequent with FFR-guided PCI (24.9% versus 8.2%; hazard ratio, 3.51 [95% CI, 1.93-6.40]; P <0.001)., Conclusions: In diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, CABG was associated with a lower rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events compared with FFR-guided PCI, driven by a higher rate of repeat revascularization. At 5-year follow-up, no difference was observed in the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between CABG and FFR-guided PCI. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

Aims: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has never been investigated in patients with reduced ejection fraction and associated coronary artery disease (CAD). We evaluated the impact of FFR on the management strategies of these patients and related outcomes., Methods and Results: From 2002 to 2010, all consecutive patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤50% undergoing coronary angiography with ≥1 intermediate coronary stenosis [diameter stenosis (DS)% 50-70%] treated based on angiography (Angiography-guided group) or according to FFR (FFR-guided group) were screened for inclusion. In the FFR-guided group, 433 patients were matched with 866 contemporary patients of the Angiography-guided group. For outcome comparison, 617 control patients with LVEF >50% were included. After FFR, stenotic vessels per patient were significantly downgraded compared with the Angiography-guided group (1.43 ± 0.98 vs. 1.97 ± 0.84; P < 0.001). This was associated with lower revascularization rate (52% vs. 62%; P < 0.001) in the FFR-guided vs. the Angiography-guided group. All-cause death at 5 years of follow-up was significantly lower in the FFR-guided as compared with Angiography-guided group [22% vs. 31%. HR (95% CI) 0.64 (0.51-0.81); P < 0.001]. Similarly, rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stroke) was significantly lower in the FFR-guided group [40% vs. 46% in the Angiography-guided group. HR (95% CI) 0.81 (0.67-0.97); P = 0.019]. Higher rates of death and MACCE were observed in patients with reduced LVEF compared with the control cohort., Conclusions: In patients with reduced LVEF and CAD, FFR-guided revascularization was associated with lower rates of death and MACCE at 5 years as compared with the Angiography-guided strategy. This beneficial impact was observed in parallel with less coronary artery bypass grafting and more patients deferred to percutaneous coronary intervention or medical therapy., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to assess prospectively the clinical benefits of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in guiding coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)., Methods and Results: GRAFFITI is a single-blinded, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided CABG. We enrolled patients undergoing coronary angiography, having a significantly diseased left anterior descending artery or left main stem and at least one more major coronary artery with intermediate stenosis, assessed by FFR. Surgical strategy was defined based on angiography, blinded to FFR values prior to randomisation. After randomisation, patients were operated on either following the angiography-based strategy (angiography-guided group) or according to FFR, i.e., with an FFR ≤0.80 as cut-off for grafting (FFR-guided group). The primary endpoint was graft patency at 12 months. Between March 2012 and December 2016, 172 patients were randomised either to the angiography-guided group (84 patients) or to the FFR-guided group (88 patients). The patients had a median of three [3; 4] lesions; diameter stenosis was 65% (50%; 80%), FFR was 0.72 (0.50; 0.82). Compared to the angiography-guided group, the FFR-guided group received fewer anastomoses (3 [3; 3] vs 2 [2; 3], respectively; p=0.004). One-year angiographic follow-up showed no difference in overall graft patency (126 [80%] vs 113 [81%], respectively; p=0.885). One-year clinical follow-up, available in 98% of patients, showed no difference in the composite of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation and stroke., Conclusions: FFR guidance of CABG has no impact on one-year graft patency, but it is associated with a simplified surgical procedure. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01810224.

Clinical benefit of invasive functionally guided revascularization has been mostly investigated and proven for percutaneous coronary intervention. It has never been prospectively evaluated whether a systematic fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment is also beneficial in guiding coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The objective of the GRAft patency after FFR-guided versus angiography-guIded CABG (GRAFFITI) trial was to compare an FFR-guided revascularization strategy to the traditional angiography-guided revascularization strategy for patients undergoing CABG. Patients were enrolled with significantly diseased left anterior descending or left main stem and at least one major coronary artery with angiographically intermediate stenosis (30-90% diameter stenosis) that was assessed by FFR. Thereafter, while the FFR values were kept concealed, cardiac surgeons decided their intended procedural strategy based on the coronary angiography alone. At this point, patients underwent 1:1 randomization to either an FFR-guided or an angiography-guided CABG strategy. In case the patient was randomized to angiography-guided arm, cardiac surgeons kept their intended procedural strategy, i.e., CABG was guided solely on the basis of the coronary angiography. In case the patient was randomized to the FFR-guided arm, FFR values were disclosed to the surgeons who revised the surgical protocol according to the functional significance of each coronary stenosis. The primary endpoint of the trial was the rate of graft occlusion at 12 months, assessed by coronary computed tomography or coronary angiography. The secondary endpoints were (1) length of postoperative hospital stay; (2) changes in surgical strategy depending upon FFR results (in FFR-guided group only); and (3) rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, i.e., composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and any revascularization during the follow-up period. This study is the first prospective randomized trial investigating potential clinical benefits, associated with FFR-guided surgical revascularization., Trial Registration: NCT01810224.

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., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Objectives: Robotic-enhanced minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (RE-MIDCAB) is based on the use of a robotic console and instrumentation for the dissection of the left internal thoracic artery (LITA). The LITA to left anterior descending (LAD) artery anastomosis is subsequently constructed through a mini thoracotomy. The purpose of this study is to present our experience of RE-MIDCAB outcomes in elderly patients., Methods: From 2002 until 2015, 44 octogenarians (the mean age of 82.9 years) underwent RE-MIDCAB. The mean logistic EuroSCORE was 9.2. The majority of the patients were male with a medical history of hypertension, dyslipidaemia and previous coronary interventions. Of these patients 25% underwent RE-MIDCAB combined with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of multi-vessel disease (hybrid revascularization)., Results: All RE-MIDCABs and combined 'hybrid' PCI procedures were successfully completed. The mean intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay were 1.6 days and 10.9 days, respectively. There was 1 in-hospital mortality (2.3%). After an average follow-up period of 29.2 months, 5 patients required repeat revascularization procedures (9.1%). Mortality on follow-up was estimated at 25.6%., Conclusions: Our report suggests that considering the age and frailty of the octogenarian population, RE-MIDCAB is a feasible and safe procedure which is associated with acceptable mid-term results., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has never been investigated in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). From 2002 to 2010, we identified 106 patients with AS and coronary artery disease with at least one intermediate lesion treated according to FFR guidance. We matched 212 contemporary control patients with AS in which revascularization was decided on angiography only. More patients in the FFR-guided group underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (24% vs 13%; p = 0.019), whereas there was a trend toward less coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed. After FFR, the number of diseased vessels was downgraded within the FFR-guided group (from 1.85 ± 0.97 to 1.48 ± 1; p <0.01) and compared with the angio-guided group (1.48 ± 1 vs 1.8 ± 0.97; p <0.01). Less aortic valve replacement was reported in the FFR-guided group (46% vs 57%; p = 0.056). In patients who underwent CABG, less venous conduits (0.5 ± 0.69 vs 0.73 ± 0.76; p = 0.05) and anastomoses (0.61 ± 0.85 vs 0.94 ± 1; p = 0.032) were necessary in the FFR-guided group. Up to 5 years, we found no difference in major adverse cardiac events (38% vs 39%; p = 0.98), overall death (32% vs 31%; p = 0.68), nonfatal myocardial infarction (2% vs 2%; p = 0.79), and revascularization (8% vs 7%; p = 0.76) between the 2 groups. In conclusion, FFR guidance impacts the management of selected patients with moderate or severe AS and coronary artery disease by resulting into deferral of aortic valve replacement, more patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention, and in patients treated with CABG, into less venous grafts and anastomoses without increasing adverse event rates up to 5 years., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We evaluated the clinical outcome of patients with moderate/severe aortic stenosis and significant coronary disease not treated according to guidelines, recommending combined aortic valve replacement (AVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). From 2002 to 2010, we assessed death up to 5 years in 650 patients with moderate/severe aortic stenosis and at least one coronary lesion (>50 %): 23 % were treated conservatively (MT), 17 % with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 11 % with AVR, and 49 % with combined CABG and AVR. At a median follow-up of 58 months, overall death decreased over the groups (MT, 68 % vs. PCI, 44 % vs. AVR, 34 % vs. CABG and AVR, 23 %, p < 0.01). Compared to the MT group, Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders showed significantly reduced mortality in the PCI, AVR, and CABG and AVR groups. When combined CABG and AVR is not feasible, PCI or AVR alone still improves significantly long-term survival as compared with MT alone.

Background--Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is well established for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, yet little is known about candidates for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Methods and Results--From 2006 to 2010, we retrospectively included in this registry 627 consecutive patients treated by coronary artery bypass graft surgery having at least 1 angiographically intermediate stenosis. In 429 patients, coronary artery bypass graft surgery was based solely on angiography (angiography-guided group). In 198 patients, at least 1 intermediate stenosis was grafted with an FFR =0.80 or deferred with an FFR >0.80 (FFR-guided group). The end point was major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years, defined as the composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of angiographic multivessel disease was similar in the angiography-guided and FFR-guided groups (404 [94.2%] versus 186 [93.9%]; P=0.722). In the FFR-guided group, this was significantly downgraded after FFR measurements to 86.4% (P<0.001 versus before FFR) and was associated with a smaller number of anastomoses (3 [2-3] versus 3 [2-4]; P<0.001) and rate of on-pump surgery (49% versus 69%; P<0.001). At 3 years, major adverse cardiovascular events were not different between the angiography- guided and FFR-guided groups (12% versus 11%; hazard ratio, 1.030; 95% confidence interval, 0.627-1.692; P=0.908). However, the FFR-guided group compared with the angiography-guided group presented a significantly lower rate of angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class II-IV, 31% versus 47%; P<0.001). Conclusions--FFR-guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery was associated with a lower number of graft anastomoses and a lower rate of on-pump surgery compared with angiography-guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery. This did not result in a higher event rate during up to 36 months of follow-up and was associated with a lower rate of angina. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]