Tobias Härle1, Uwe Zeymer2,3, Matthias Hochadel3, Ralf Zahn2, Sebastian Kerber4, Bernhard Zrenner5, Volker Schächinger6, Bernward Lauer7, Thorsten Runde8, Albrecht Elsässer9. 1. Klinik für Kardiologie, Klinikum Oldenburg gGmbH, European Medical School Oldenburg-Groningen, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Rahel-Straus-Str. 10, 26133, Oldenburg, Germany. t.haerle@gmx.de. 2. Medizinische Klinik B, Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany. 3. Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany. 4. Klinik für Kardiologie, Herz- und Gefäß-Klinik GmbH, Bad Neustadt a. d., Haale, Germany. 5. Krankenhaus Landshut-Achdorf, Medizinische Klinik I, Landshut, Germany. 6. Klinikum Fulda, Medizinische Klinik I, Fulda, Germany. 7. Klinik für Kardiologie, Zentralklinik Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany. 8. Klinikum Wetzlar, Medizinische Klinik I, Wetzlar, Germany. 9. Klinik für Kardiologie, Klinikum Oldenburg gGmbH, European Medical School Oldenburg-Groningen, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Rahel-Straus-Str. 10, 26133, Oldenburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence for beneficial prognostic and economic effects of FFR-guided treatment of stable coronary artery disease. We sought to evaluate the real-world use of FFR measurements in patients undergoing elective coronary angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed the data of the prospective ALKK coronary angiography and PCI registry including data of 38 hospitals from January 2010 to December 2013. A total of 100,977 patients undergoing coronary angiography were included. In 3240 patients (3.2 %) intracoronary pressure measurement was performed. There was a wide range of use of FFR measurement in the different analyzed ALKK hospitals from 0.1 to 8.8 % in elective patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (median 2.7 %, quartiles 0.9 and 5.3 %), with a successive increase of use over time during the study period. Overall, it was performed in 3.2 % of coronary angiographies. Use in patients with three-vessel disease (2.5 %) and recommendation for bypass surgery (1.6 %) was less frequent. In procedures without PCI, dose area product was higher in the FFR group (2641 cGy × cm2 vs. 2368 cGy × cm2, p < 0.001), while it was lower in procedures with ad hoc PCI (4676 cGy × cm2 vs. 5143 cGy × cm2, p < 0.001). The performing center turned out to be the strongest predictor. CONCLUSIONS: The use of FFR measurement was very heterogeneous between different hospitals and in general relatively low, in particular in patients with multivessel disease or recommendation for bypass surgery, but there was a positive trend during the study period. Technically, FFR measurement was not associated with an increased periprocedural complication rate.
BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence for beneficial prognostic and economic effects of FFR-guided treatment of stable coronary artery disease. We sought to evaluate the real-world use of FFR measurements in patients undergoing elective coronary angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed the data of the prospective ALKK coronary angiography and PCI registry including data of 38 hospitals from January 2010 to December 2013. A total of 100,977 patients undergoing coronary angiography were included. In 3240 patients (3.2 %) intracoronary pressure measurement was performed. There was a wide range of use of FFR measurement in the different analyzed ALKK hospitals from 0.1 to 8.8 % in elective patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (median 2.7 %, quartiles 0.9 and 5.3 %), with a successive increase of use over time during the study period. Overall, it was performed in 3.2 % of coronary angiographies. Use in patients with three-vessel disease (2.5 %) and recommendation for bypass surgery (1.6 %) was less frequent. In procedures without PCI, dose area product was higher in the FFR group (2641 cGy × cm2 vs. 2368 cGy × cm2, p < 0.001), while it was lower in procedures with ad hoc PCI (4676 cGy × cm2 vs. 5143 cGy × cm2, p < 0.001). The performing center turned out to be the strongest predictor. CONCLUSIONS: The use of FFR measurement was very heterogeneous between different hospitals and in general relatively low, in particular in patients with multivessel disease or recommendation for bypass surgery, but there was a positive trend during the study period. Technically, FFR measurement was not associated with an increased periprocedural complication rate.
Authors: Nico H J Pijls; William F Fearon; Pim A L Tonino; Uwe Siebert; Fumiaki Ikeno; Bernhard Bornschein; Marcel van't Veer; Volker Klauss; Ganesh Manoharan; Thomas Engstrøm; Keith G Oldroyd; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A MacCarthy; Bernard De Bruyne Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-05-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R F Davies; A D Goldberg; S Forman; C J Pepine; G L Knatterud; N Geller; G Sopko; C Pratt; J Deanfield; C R Conti Journal: Circulation Date: 1997-04-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sayan Sen; Javier Escaned; Iqbal S Malik; Ghada W Mikhail; Rodney A Foale; Rafael Mila; Jason Tarkin; Ricardo Petraco; Christopher Broyd; Richard Jabbour; Amarjit Sethi; Christopher S Baker; Micheal Bellamy; Mahmud Al-Bustami; David Hackett; Masood Khan; David Lefroy; Kim H Parker; Alun D Hughes; Darrel P Francis; Carlo Di Mario; Jamil Mayet; Justin E Davies Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: William F Fearon; Bernhard Bornschein; Pim A L Tonino; Raffaella M Gothe; Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Uwe Siebert Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kees-Joost Botman; Nico H J Pijls; Jan Willem Bech; Wilbert Aarnoudse; Kathinka Peels; Bart van Straten; Olaf Penn; H Rolf Michels; Hans Bonnier; Jacques J Koolen Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Pim A L Tonino; William F Fearon; Bernard De Bruyne; Keith G Oldroyd; Massoud A Leesar; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A Maccarthy; Marcel Van't Veer; Nico H J Pijls Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: E O Ofili; M J Kern; J A St Vrain; T J Donohue; R Bach; B al-Joundi; F V Aguirre; R Castello; A J Labovitz Journal: Am Heart J Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Moritz Seiffert; Francisco Ojeda; Kai Müllerleile; Elvin Zengin; Christoph Sinning; Christoph Waldeyer; Edith Lubos; Ulrich Schäfer; Karsten Sydow; Stefan Blankenberg; Dirk Westermann Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Carlos Cortés; Thomas W Johnson; Sigmund Silber; Piotr P Buszman; Tudor C Poerner; Francesco Lavarra; Borja Ibáñez; Yongcheol Kim; Karl Mischke; Miłosz Jaguszewski; Juan Luis Gutiérrez-Chico Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2020 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Tobias Härle; Mareike Luz; Sven Meyer; Felix Vahldiek; Pim van der Harst; Randy van Dijk; Daan Ties; Javier Escaned; Justin Davies; Albrecht Elsässer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Dominik C Benz; Christoph Gräni; Paola Ferro; Luis Neumeier; Michael Messerli; Mathias Possner; Olivier F Clerc; Catherine Gebhard; Oliver Gaemperli; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Philipp A Kaufmann; Ronny R Buechel Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Hans R Figulla; Alexander Lauten; Lars S Maier; Udo Sechtem; Sigmund Silber; Holger Thiele Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Jagat Narula; Y Chandrashekhar; Amir Ahmadi; Suhny Abbara; Daniel S Berman; Ron Blankstein; Jonathon Leipsic; David Newby; Edward D Nicol; Koen Nieman; Leslee Shaw; Todd C Villines; Michelle Williams; Harvey S Hecht Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2020-11-20