Zhi Liu1, Yasushi Matsuzawa2, Joerg Herrmann2, Jing Li3, Ryan J Lennon4, Daniel J Crusan4, Taek-Geun Kwon2, Ming Zhang2, Tao Sun2, Shiwei Yang2, Rajiv Gulati2, Malcolm R Bell2, Lilach O Lerman5, Amir Lerman6. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Division of Cardiology, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing 100053, China. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Division of Cardiology, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing 100053, China. 4. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 6. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: lerman.amir@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: FFR of deferred PCI lesions can predict future cardiovascular events. However, the prognostic utility of FFR remains unclear in diabetic patients in view of the potential impact of the diffuse nature of vascular disease process. We aimed to study the relation between fractional flow reserve (FFR) values and long-term outcomes of diabetic and non-diabetic patients with deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: Patients with FFR assessment and deferred PCI (n=630) were enrolled and stratified according to diabetes mellitus (DM) status and FFR values. Patients were followed over a median of 39months. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to analyze the association between clinical endpoints and clinical factors such as DM and FFR. RESULTS: In non-diabetics (n=450), higher FFR values were associated with less cardiovascular events (hazard ratio (HR) for death and myocardial infarction (MI) [95% confidence interval (CI)], 0.61[0.44 to 0.86] per 0.1 increase in FFR, p=0.007; HR for revascularization [95%CI], 0.66[0.49 to 0.9] per 0.1 increase in FFR, p=0.006). In diabetics (n=180), there was no difference in death and MI across the range of FFR values. Among those patients with an FFR >0.85, diabetics had a more than two-fold higher risk of death and MI than non-diabetics (HR [95% CI], 2.20 [1.19 to 4.01], p=0.015). CONCLUSION: Among non-diabetic patients with deferred PCI, a higher FFR was associated with lower rates of death, MI and revascularization. On the contrary in diabetic patients with deferred revascularization, FFR was not able to differentiate the risk of cardiovascular events.
BACKGROUND: FFR of deferred PCI lesions can predict future cardiovascular events. However, the prognostic utility of FFR remains unclear in diabeticpatients in view of the potential impact of the diffuse nature of vascular disease process. We aimed to study the relation between fractional flow reserve (FFR) values and long-term outcomes of diabetic and non-diabeticpatients with deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS:Patients with FFR assessment and deferred PCI (n=630) were enrolled and stratified according to diabetes mellitus (DM) status and FFR values. Patients were followed over a median of 39months. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to analyze the association between clinical endpoints and clinical factors such as DM and FFR. RESULTS: In non-diabetics (n=450), higher FFR values were associated with less cardiovascular events (hazard ratio (HR) for death and myocardial infarction (MI) [95% confidence interval (CI)], 0.61[0.44 to 0.86] per 0.1 increase in FFR, p=0.007; HR for revascularization [95%CI], 0.66[0.49 to 0.9] per 0.1 increase in FFR, p=0.006). In diabetics (n=180), there was no difference in death and MI across the range of FFR values. Among those patients with an FFR >0.85, diabetics had a more than two-fold higher risk of death and MI than non-diabetics (HR [95% CI], 2.20 [1.19 to 4.01], p=0.015). CONCLUSION: Among non-diabeticpatients with deferred PCI, a higher FFR was associated with lower rates of death, MI and revascularization. On the contrary in diabeticpatients with deferred revascularization, FFR was not able to differentiate the risk of cardiovascular events.
Authors: Federico Marin; Roberto Scarsini; Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios; Rafail A Kotronias; Flavio Ribichini; Adrian P Banning; Giovanni Luigi De Maria Journal: Curr Cardiol Rev Date: 2022
Authors: Mark W Kennedy; Eliza Kaplan; Rik S Hermanides; Enrico Fabris; Veemal Hemradj; Petra C Koopmans; Jan-Hank E Dambrink; A T Marcel Gosselink; Arnoud W J Van't Hof; Jan Paul Ottervanger; Vincent Roolvink; Wouter S Remkes; Aize van der Sluis; Harry Suryapranata; Elvin Kedhi Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Mark W Kennedy; Enrico Fabris; Alexander J Ijsselmuiden; Holger Nef; Sebastian Reith; Javier Escaned; Fernando Alfonso; Niels van Royen; Wojtek Wojakowski; Adam Witkowski; Ciro Indolfi; Jan Paul Ottervanger; Harry Suryapranata; Elvin Kedhi Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Giuseppe Gargiulo; Eugenio Stabile; Marco Ferrone; Emanuele Barbato; Frederik M Zimmermann; Julien Adjedj; Barry Hennigan; Mitsuaki Matsumura; Nils P Johnson; William F Fearon; Allen Jeremias; Bruno Trimarco; Giovanni Esposito Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Damien Garcia; Brahim Harbaoui; Tim P van de Hoef; Martijn Meuwissen; Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Justin E Davies; Jan J Piek; Pierre Lantelme Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 3.240