Literature DB >> 24255062

Outcome impact of coronary revascularization strategy reclassification with fractional flow reserve at time of diagnostic angiography: insights from a large French multicenter fractional flow reserve registry.

Eric Van Belle1, Gilles Rioufol, Christophe Pouillot, Thomas Cuisset, Karim Bougrini, Emmanuel Teiger, Stéphane Champagne, Loic Belle, Didier Barreau, Michel Hanssen, Cyril Besnard, Raphael Dauphin, Jean Dallongeville, Yassine El Hahi, Georgios Sideris, Christophe Bretelle, Nicolas Lhoest, Pierre Barnay, Laurent Leborgne, Patrick Dupouy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is no large report of the impact of fractional flow reserve (FFR) on the reclassification of the coronary revascularization strategy on individual patients referred for diagnostic angiography. METHODS AND
RESULTS: The Registre Français de la FFR (R3F) investigated 1075 consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic angiography including an FFR investigation at 20 French centers. Investigators were asked to define prospectively their revascularization strategy a priori based on angiography before performing the FFR. The final revascularization strategy, reclassification of the strategy by FFR, and 1-year clinical follow-up were prospectively recorded. The strategy a priori based on angiography was medical therapy in 55% and revascularization in 45% (percutaneous coronary intervention, 38%; coronary artery bypass surgery, 7%). Patients were treated according to FFR in 1028/1075 (95.7%). The applied strategy after FFR was medical therapy in 58% and revascularization in 42% (percutaneous coronary intervention, 32%; coronary artery bypass surgery, 10%). The final strategy applied differed from the strategy a priori in 43% of cases: in 33% of a priori medical patients, in 56% of patients undergoing a priori percutaneous coronary intervention, and in 51% of patients undergoing a priori coronary artery bypass surgery. In reclassified patients treated based on FFR and in disagreement with the angiography-based a priori decision (n=464), the 1-year outcome (major cardiac event, 11.2%) was as good as in patients in whom final applied strategy concurred with the angiography-based a priori decision (n=611; major cardiac event, 11.9%; log-rank, P=0.78). At 1 year, >93% patients were asymptomatic without difference between reclassified and nonreclassified patients (Generalized Linear Mixed Model, P=0.75). Reclassification safety was preserved in high-risk patients.
CONCLUSION: This study shows that performing FFR during diagnostic angiography is associated with reclassification of the revascularization decision in about half of the patients. It further demonstrates that it is safe to pursue a revascularization strategy divergent from that suggested by angiography but guided by FFR.

Entities:  

Keywords:  coronary angiography; coronary artery disease; fractional flow reserve; mortality; outcome assessment (health care)

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24255062     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006646

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  31 in total

Review 1.  Quantitative Coronary Physiology for Clinical Management: the Imaging Standard.

Authors:  K Lance Gould; Nils P Johnson
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 2.  Consensus document for invasive coronary physiologic assessment in Asia-Pacific countries.

Authors:  Hak Seung Lee; Joo Myung Lee; Chang-Wook Nam; Eun-Seok Shin; Joon-Hyung Doh; Neng Dai; Martin K C Ng; Andy S C Yong; Damras Tresukosol; Ajit S Mullasari; Rony Mathew; Praveen Chandra; Kuang-Te Wang; Yundai Chen; Jiyan Chen; Kai-Hang Yiu; Nils P Johnson; Bon-Kwon Koo
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 2.737

3.  A physiological approach to refine appropriateness of revascularization, clinical decision making and prognosis in patients with multi vessel coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Linle Hou; Bobby Ghosh; Abdul Hakeem
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Borderline multivessel coronary artery disease assessed by fractional flow reserve-affecting practice?

Authors:  Jacob Lønborg; Thomas Engstrøm
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  Real-world use of fractional flow reserve in Germany: results of the prospective ALKK coronary angiography and PCI registry.

Authors:  Tobias Härle; Uwe Zeymer; Matthias Hochadel; Ralf Zahn; Sebastian Kerber; Bernhard Zrenner; Volker Schächinger; Bernward Lauer; Thorsten Runde; Albrecht Elsässer
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 5.460

6.  Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement by Computed Tomography: An Alternative to the Stress Test.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Lee; Bríain Ó Hartaigh; Donghee Han; Asim Rizvi; Fay Y Lin; James K Min
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2016-10

7.  Performing and Interpreting Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Clinical Practice: An Expert Consensus Document.

Authors:  Stephan Achenbach; Tanja Rudolph; Johannes Rieber; Holger Eggebrecht; Gert Richardt; Thomas Schmitz; Nikos Werner; Florian Boenner; Helge Möllmann
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2017-09

Review 8.  The Clinical Significance of Physiological Assessment of Residual Ischemia After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors:  Chandra P Ojha; Ahmed Ibrahim; Timir K Paul; Venkatachalam Mulukutla; Harsha S Nagarajarao
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2020-02-08       Impact factor: 2.931

9.  Distinction of non-ischemia inducing versus ischemia inducing coronary stenosis by fluorescent cardiac imaging.

Authors:  Sabine Wipper; Beate Reiter; Detlef Russ; Fabian Hahnel; Jan-Felix Kersten; Tilo Kölbel; Hermann Reichenspurner; Christian Detter
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 10.  Coronary Angiography With Pressure Wire and Fractional Flow Reserve.

Authors:  Luise Gaede; Helge Möllmann; Tanja Rudolph; Johannes Rieber; Florian Boenner; Monique Tröbs
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 5.594

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.