Search

Background: The ADVANCE registry is a large prospective study of outcomes and resource utilization in patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and CT-based fractional flow reserve (FFR CT ). As experience with new technologies and practices develops over time, we investigated temporal changes in the use of FFR CT within the ADVANCE registry., Methods: 5083 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) on CCTA were prospectively enrolled in the ADVANCE registry and were divided into 3 equally sized cohorts based on the temporal order of enrollment per site. Demographics, CCTA and FFR CT findings, and clinical outcomes through 1-year follow-up, were recorded and compared between tertiles., Results: The number of patients with a ≥70% stenosis on CCTA was similar over time (33.6%, 30.9%, and 33.8% for cohort 1-3). The rate of positive FFR CT ≤0.80 was higher for cohorts 2 (67.3%) and 3 (74.6%) than for cohort 1 (57.1%, p < 0.001). Invasive FFR rates decreased from 25.8% to 22.4% between cohort 1 and 3 (p = 0.023). Moreover, patients with a FFR CT ≤0.80 were less frequently referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) (from 62.9% to 52.9%, p < 0.001), and underwent fewer revascularizations between cohort 1 and 3 (from 41.9% to 32.0%, p < 0.001). The prevalence of major events was low (1.2%) and similar between cohorts., Conclusions: Growing experience with FFR CT improved the likelihood of identifying hemodynamically significant CAD and safely reduced the need for ICA and revascularization in patients with anatomically significant disease even in the instance of an abnormal FFR CT., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Nous has received travel sponsorship from HeartFlow. Dr. Fairbairn has served on the Speakers Bureau for HeartFlow. Dr. Nørgaard has received unrestricted institutional research grants from Siemens and HeartFlow. Dr. Berman has received unrestricted research support from HeartFlow. Dr. Hurwitz-Koweek has received research support and fee as speaker from HeartFlow and Siemens. Dr. Pontone has received research grant and/or fee as speaker from GE Healthcare, Bracco, and HeartFlow. Dr. Budde has institutional research support from HeartFlow and Siemens Healthineers. Dr. Sonck has received research grant support from the Cardiopath PhD program. Dr. Rabbat has served as a consultant for HeartFlow. Dr. Mullen is an employee of and owns equity in HeartFlow. Dr. De Bruyne has received consulting fees from Abbott, Opsens, and Boston Scientific; and is a shareholder for Siemens, GE Healthcare, Bayer, Philips, HeartFlow, Edwards Lifesciences, and Sanofi. Dr. Rogers is employee of and owns equity in HeartFlow. Dr. Leipsic has served as a consultant for and owns stock options in Circle CVI and HeartFlow. Dr. Patel has received research grants from HeartFlow, Bayer, Janssen, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and has served on the advisory board for HeartFlow, Bayer, and Janssen. Dr. Nieman has received institutional research support from Siemens Healthineers, HeartFlow, GE Healthcare, and Bayer Healthcare. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The demonstrated benefits of home care for haemophilia include improved quality of life, less pain and disability, fewer hospitalizations, and less time lost from work or school. Although reduced mortality has not been demonstrated, the substantial increase in longevity since the early 1980s correlates with the introduction of home treatment and prophylaxis programmes. These programmes must be designed and monitored by haemophilia treatment centres (HTC), which are staffed with professionals with broad and complementary expertise in the disease and its complications. In return, patients and their families must be willing to accept the reciprocal responsibilities that come from administering blood products or their recombinant equivalents at home. Patients with inhibitors to factors VIII or IX pose special challenges, but these complications do not obviate participation in home care programmes. Home care was an essential prerequisite to the introduction of effective prophylactic factor replacement therapy. Prophylaxis offers significant improvements in quality of life, but requires a substantial commitment. The use of implantable venous access devices can eliminate some of the difficulty and discomfort of peripheral venous access in small children, but brings additional risks. The future holds the promise of factor concentrates for home use that have longer half-lives, or can be administered by alternate routes. Knowledge of patient genotypes may allow treatments tailored to avoid complications such as inhibitor development. Gene therapy trials, which are currently ongoing, will ultimately lead to gene-based treatments as a complement to traditional protein-based therapy.