Search

Importance Whether the improvement in myocardial perfusion provided by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with symptomatic relief or improved outcomes has not been well investigated. Objective To investigate the prognostic value of the improvement in fractional flow reserve (FFR) after PCI (ΔFFR) on patients’ symptoms and 2-year outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants This study is a post hoc analysis of data from patients undergoing FFR-guided PCI in the randomized clinical trials Fractional Flow Reserve vs Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) 1 (NCT00267774; 2009) and FAME 2 (NCT01132495; 2012), with inclusion of 2 years of follow-up data. The FAME 1 trial included patients with multivessel coronary artery disease from 20 medical centers in Europe and the United States. The FAME 2 trial included patients with stable coronary artery disease involving up to 3 vessels from 28 sites in Europe and North America. Lesions from the group in the FAME 1 trial from whom FFR was measured and the group in the FAME 2 trial who received FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy were analyzed. Data analysis occurred from May 2017 to May 2018. Interventions Measure of post-PCI FFR. Main Outcomes and Measures Vessel-oriented clinical events at 2 years, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-associated myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Results This analysis included 639 patients from whom pre-PCI and post-PCI FFR values were available. Of their 837 lesions, 277 were classified into the lowest tertile (ΔFFR≤0.18), 282 into the middle tertile (0.19≤ΔFFR≤0.31), and 278 into the highest tertile (ΔFFR>0.31). Vessel-oriented clinical events were significantly more frequent in the lowest tertile (n = 25 of 277 [9.1%]) compared with the highest tertile (n = 13 of 278 [4.7%]; hazard ratio, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.03-3.92]; P = .04). In addition, a significant association was observed between ΔFFR and symptomatic relief (odds ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.02-1.74]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance In this analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials, the larger the improvement in FFR, the larger the symptomatic relief and the lower the event rate. This suggests that measuring FFR before and after PCI provides clinically useful information.

Background Global fractional flow reserve (FFR) (ie, the sum of the FFR values in the 3 major coronary arteries) is a physiologic correlate of global atherosclerotic burden. The objective of the present study was to investigate the value of global FFR in predicting long‐term clinical outcome of patients with stable coronary artery disease but no ischemia‐inducing stenosis. Methods and Results We studied major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs: all‐cause death, myocardial infarction, and any revascularization) after 5 years in 1122 patients without significant stenosis (all FFR >0.80; n=275) or with at least 1 significant stenosis successfully treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (ie, post–percutaneous coronary intervention FFR >0.80; n=847). The patients were stratified into low, mid, or high tertiles of global FFR (≤2.80, 2.80–2.88, and ≥2.88). Patients in the lowest tertile of global FFR showed the highest 5‐year MACE rate compared with those in the mid or high tertile of global FFR (27.5% versus 22.0% and 20.9%, respectively; log‐rank P =0.040). The higher 5‐year MACE rate was mainly driven by a higher rate of revascularization in the low global FFR group (16.4% versus 11.3% and 11.8%, respectively; log‐rank P =0.038). In a multivariable model, an increase in global FFR of 0.1 unit was associated with a significant reduction in the rates of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.988; 95% CI, 0.977–0.998; P =0.023), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.982; 95% CI, 0.966–0.998; P =0.032), and revascularization (HR, 0.985; 95% CI, 0.972–0.999; P =0.040). Conclusions Even in the absence of ischemia‐producing stenoses, patients with a low global FFR, physiologic correlate of global atherosclerotic burden, present a higher risk of MACE at 5‐year follow‐up.

Aims: The aim of this study was to assess whether the culotte technique could be improved by an additional kissing dilation prior to main branch (MB) stenting. Methods and results: Double-kissing (DK) culotte was compared to the culotte and DK-crush techniques in a bench model (n=24). Results were evaluated for stent apposition, luminal opening and flow dynamics. The total procedure duration of DK-culotte was 18.3±3.4 minutes, significantly lower than for DK-crush (24.3±5.7 min; p=0.015), but similar to culotte (21.6±5.9 min, p=0.104). In DK-culotte the overall rate of moderate (200-500 μm) and significant (>500 μm) malapposition was 2.1±1.9% and 0.4±0.2%, similar as compared to culotte (3.7±3.8%, p=0.459 and 1.0±1.0%, p=0.517, respectively), and lower as compared to DK-crush (8.1±2.5%, p

Aims Significant platelet activation after long stented coronary segments has been associated with periprocedural microvascular impairment and myonecrosis. In long lesions treated either with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) or an everolimus-eluting stent (EES), we aimed to investigate (a) procedure-related microvascular impairment, and (b) the relationship of platelet activation with microvascular function and related myonecrosis. Methods and results Patients (n=66) undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in long lesions were randomised 1:1 to either BVS or EES. The primary endpoint was the difference between groups in changes of pressure-derived corrected index of microvascular resistance (cIMR) after PCI. Periprocedural myonecrosis was assessed by high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), platelet reactivity by high-sensitivity adenosine diphosphate (hs-ADP)-induced platelet reactivity with the Multiplate Analyzer. Post-dilatation was more frequent in the BVS group, with consequent longer procedure time. A significant difference was observed between the two groups in the primary endpoint of ΔcIMR (p=0.04). hs-ADP was not different between the groups at different time points. hs-cTnT significantly increased after PCI, without difference between the groups. Conclusions In long lesions, BVS implantation is associated with significant acute reduction in IMR as compared with EES, with no significant interaction with platelet reactivity or periprocedural myonecrosis.

Background: Among patients with documented stable coronary artery disease and in whom no revascularization was performed, we compared the respective values of angiographic diameter stenosis (DS) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in predicting natural history. Methods: The present analysis included the 607 patients from the FAME 2 trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation 2) in whom no revascularization was performed. FFR varied from 0.20 to 1.00 (average 0.74±0.16), and DS (by quantitative coronary analysis) varied from 8% to 98% (average 53±15). The primary end point, defined as vessel-oriented clinical end point (VOCE) at 2 years, was a composite of prospectively adjudicated cardiac death, vessel-related myocardial infarction, vessel-related urgent, and not urgent revascularization. The stenoses were divided into 4 groups according to FFR and %DS values: positive concordance (FFR≤0.80; DS≥50%), negative concordance (FFR>0.80; DS0.80; DS≥50%). Results: The rate of VOCE was highest in the positive concordance group (log rank: X 2 =80.96; P =0.001) and lowest in the negative concordance group. The rate of VOCE was higher in the positive mismatch group than in the negative mismatch group (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.21–0.67; P =0.001). There was no significant difference in VOCE between the positive concordance and positive mismatch groups (FFR≤0.80; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.57–1.09; P =0.149) and no significant difference in rate of VOCE between the negative mismatch and negative concordance groups (FFR>0.80; hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.96–3.74; P =0.067). Conclusions: In patients with stable coronary disease, physiology (FFR) is a more important determinant of the natural history of coronary stenoses than anatomy (DS). Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01132495.

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.

Pressure wire-based fractional flow reserve is considered the standard of reference for evaluation of the ischemic potential of coronary stenoses and the expected benefit from revascularization. Accordingly, its application in daily practice or for research purposes has to be as standardized as possible to avoid technical or operator-related artifacts in pressure recordings. This document proposes a standardized way of acquiring, recording, interpreting, and archiving the pressure tracings for daily practice and for the purpose of clinical research involving a core laboratory. Proposed standardized steps enhance the uniformity of clinical practices and data interpretation. (C) 2016 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Dr. Toth has a consultancy agreement with St. Jude Medical. Dr. Johnson has received internal funding from the Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing and Reversing Atherosclerosis; has received significant institutional research support from St. Jude Medical and Volcano/Philips outside of the submitted work; and has an institutional licensing and consulting agreement with Boston Scientific. Dr. Jeremias has reported speaker and consultant fees from Volcano Inc. and St. Jude Medical Inc. outside of the submitted work. Dr. Pellicano has been supported by a research grant provided by the Cardiopath PhD program. Dr. Vranckx has received speaking or consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, and The Medicines Co. outside of the submitted work. Dr. Fearon has received research support from Medtronic and St. Jude Medical outside of the submitted work; and has received consultant fees from Medtronic, HeartFlow, and Cathworks. Dr. Barbato has received institutional research grants and speakers fees from St. Jude Medical outside of the submitted work. Dr. Kern has received consultant and speaker fees from St. Jude Medical, Volcano, Opsens, ACIST Medical, and Heartflow outside of the submitted work. Dr. Pijls is a consultant for St. Jude Medical, Opsens, and Boston Scientific outside of the submitted work; has received research grants from Medtronic; and is a shareholder for Philips, ASML, General Electric, and Heartflow. Dr. De Bruyne is a shareholder for Siemens, GE, Bayer, Philips, HeartFlow, Edwards Life Sciences, Sanofi, and Omega Pharma; and his institution has received grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and St. Jude Medical and receives consulting fees on his behalf from St. Jude Medical, Opsens, and Boston Scientific outside of the submitted work.

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

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: The FIREHAWK is a drug-eluting stent with a fully biodegradable sirolimus-containing polymer coating localised to recessed abluminal grooves on the stent surface. We investigated clinical outcomes with this targeted, low-dose, biodegradable polymer, sirolimus-eluting stent compared with XIENCE durable polymer, everolimus-eluting stents in an all-comers population. METHODS: The TARGET All Comers study was a prospective, multicentre, open-label randomised non-inferiority trial done at 21 centres in ten European countries. Patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic coronary artery disease and objective evidence of myocardial ischaemia who qualified for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomised 1:1 to undergo implantation of a FIREHAWK or XIENCE. Randomisation was web-based, with random block allocation and stratification by centre and ST elevation myocardial infarction. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but treating physicians and patients were not. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure at 12 months, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation. The control event rate for XIENCE was assumed to be 7%, the non-inferiority margin was 3.5%, and the primary analysis was in the intention-to-treat population, censoring patients who did not have either an event before 365 days or contact beyond 365 days. Late lumen loss was the primary endpoint of an angiographic substudy designed to investigate the non-inferiority of the FIREHAWK compared with the XIENCE stent. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02520180. FINDINGS: From Dec 17, 2015, to Oct 14, 2016, 1653 patients were randomly assigned to implantation of the FIREHAWK (n=823) or XIENCE (n=830). 65 patients in the FIREHAWK group and 66 in the XIENCE group had insufficient follow-up data and were excluded from the analyses. At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 46 (6.1%) of 758 patients in the FIREHAWK group and in 45 (5.9%) of 764 patients in the XIENCE group (difference 0.2%, 90% CI -1.9 to 2.2, pnon-inferiority=0.004, 95% CI -2.2 to 2.6, psuperiority=0.88). There were no differences in ischaemia-driven revascularisation or stent thrombosis rates at 12 months. 176 patients were included in the angiographic substudy, in which in-stent late lumen loss was 0.17 mm (SD 0.48) in the FIREHAWK group and 0.11 mm (0.52) in the XIENCE group (p=0.48), with an absolute difference of 0.05 mm (95% CI -0.09 to 0.18, pnon-inferiority=0.024). INTERPRETATION: In a broad all-comers population of patients requiring stent implantation for myocardial ischaemia, the FIREHAWK was non-inferior to the XIENCE as assessed with the primary endpoint of target lesion failure at 12 months and in-stent late lumen loss at 13 months. The FIREHAWK is a safe and effective alternative stent to treat patients with ischaemic coronary artery disease in clinical practice. FUNDING: Shanghai Microport Medical.

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 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.

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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

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 ( 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.

The aim of this review is to highlight the role of invasive functional evaluation in patients in whom coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is indicated, and to examine the clinical evidence available in favour of fractional flow reserve (FFR) adoption in these patients, outline appropriate use, as well as point out potential pitfalls. FFR after CABG will also be reviewed, highlighting its correct interpretation and adoption when applied to both native coronary arteries and bypass grafts. Practice European guidelines support the use of FFR to complement coronary angiography with the highest degree of recommendation (Class IA) for the assessment of coronary stenosis before undertaking myocardial revascularization when previous non-invasive functional evaluation is unavailable or not conclusive. As a result, FFR has been adopted in routine clinical practice to guide clinicians decision as to whether or not perform a revascularization. Of note, due to the increasing confidence of the interventional cardiologists, FFR guidance is also being implemented to indicate or guide CABG. This is in anticipation of supportive clear-cut evidence, since recommendations for FFR adoption were based on randomized clinical trials investigating percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategies in which patients with typical indications for CABG were excluded (e.g. left main disease, valvular disease, and coronary anatomy unsuitable for PCI). Based on the critical appraisal of the literature, FFR can play an important role in risk stratification and determining management strategy of patients either before or after CABG.

Background— The fractional flow reserve (FFR) value of 0.75 has been validated against ischemic testing, whereas the FFR value of 0.80 has been widely accepted to guide clinical decision making. However, revascularization when FFR is 0.76 to 0.80, within the so-called gray zone, is still debatable. Methods and Results— From February 1997 to June 2013, all patients with single-segment disease and an FFR value within the gray zone or within the 2 neighboring FFR strata (0.70–0.75 and 0.81–0.85) were included. Study end points consisted of major adverse cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, and any revascularization) up to 5 years. Of 17 380 FFR measurements, 1459 patients were included. Of them, 449 patients were treated with revascularization and 1010 patients were treated with medical therapy. In the gray zone, the major adverse cardiovascular events rate was similar (37 [13.9%] versus 21 [11.2%], respectively; P =0.3) between medical therapy and revascularization, whereas a strong trend toward a higher rate of death or myocardial infarction (25 [9.4] versus 9 [4.8], P =0.06) and overall death (20 [7.5] versus 6 [3.2], P =0.059) was observed in the medical therapy group. Among medical therapy patients, a significant step-up increase in major adverse cardiovascular events rate was observed across the 3 FFR strata, especially with proximal lesion location. In revascularization patients, the major adverse cardiovascular events rate was not different across the 3 FFR strata. Conclusions— FFR in and around the gray zone bears a major prognostic value, especially in proximal lesions. These data confirm that FFR≤0.80 is valid to guide clinical decision making.

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