Goran Rimac1, William F Fearon2, Bernard De Bruyne3, Fumiaki Ikeno2, Hitoshi Matsuo4, Zsolt Piroth5, Olivier Costerousse1, Olivier F Bertrand6. 1. Cardiology Department, Quebec Heart-Lung Institute, Quebec, Quebec, Canada. 2. Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA. 3. Cardiovascular Center Aalst, OLV Clinic, Aalst, Belgium. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Gifu Heart Center, Gifu, Japan. 5. Hungarian Institute of Cardiology, Budapest, Hungary. 6. Cardiology Department, Quebec Heart-Lung Institute, Quebec, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: Olivier.bertrand@crhl.ulaval.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is useful to guide treatment. Whether post-PCI FFR assessment might have clinical impact is controversial. The aim of this study is to evaluate the range of post-PCI FFR values and analyze the relationship between post-PCI FFR and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases with cross-referencing of articles reporting post-PCI FFR and correlating post-PCI FFR values and clinical outcomes. The outcomes of interest were the immediate post-PCI FFR values and the correlations between post-PCI FFR and the incidence of repeat intervention and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: From 1995 to 2015, a total of 105 studies (n = 7470) were included, with 46 studies reporting post-PCI FFR and 59 studies evaluating relationship between post-PCI and clinical outcomes up to 30 months after PCI. Overall, post-PCI FFR values demonstrated a normal distribution with a mean value of 0.90 ± 0.04. There was a positive correlation between the percentage of stent use and post-PCI FFR (P < .0001). Meta-regression analysis indicated that higher post-PCI FFR values were associated with reduced rates of repeat intervention (P < .0001) and MACE (P = .0013). A post-PCI FFR ≥0.90 was associated with significantly lower risk of repeat PCI (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.34-0.56, P < .0001) and MACE (odds ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85, P = .0003). CONCLUSIONS: FFR measurement after PCI was associated with prognostic significance. Further investigation is required to assess the role of post-PCI FFR and validate cutoff values in contemporary clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is useful to guide treatment. Whether post-PCI FFR assessment might have clinical impact is controversial. The aim of this study is to evaluate the range of post-PCI FFR values and analyze the relationship between post-PCI FFR and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases with cross-referencing of articles reporting post-PCI FFR and correlating post-PCI FFR values and clinical outcomes. The outcomes of interest were the immediate post-PCI FFR values and the correlations between post-PCI FFR and the incidence of repeat intervention and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: From 1995 to 2015, a total of 105 studies (n = 7470) were included, with 46 studies reporting post-PCI FFR and 59 studies evaluating relationship between post-PCI and clinical outcomes up to 30 months after PCI. Overall, post-PCI FFR values demonstrated a normal distribution with a mean value of 0.90 ± 0.04. There was a positive correlation between the percentage of stent use and post-PCI FFR (P < .0001). Meta-regression analysis indicated that higher post-PCI FFR values were associated with reduced rates of repeat intervention (P < .0001) and MACE (P = .0013). A post-PCI FFR ≥0.90 was associated with significantly lower risk of repeat PCI (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.34-0.56, P < .0001) and MACE (odds ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85, P = .0003). CONCLUSIONS: FFR measurement after PCI was associated with prognostic significance. Further investigation is required to assess the role of post-PCI FFR and validate cutoff values in contemporary clinical practice.
Authors: Stephane Fournier; Giovanni Ciccarelli; Gabor G Toth; Anastasios Milkas; Panagiotis Xaplanteris; Pim A L Tonino; William F Fearon; Nico H J Pijls; Emanuele Barbato; Bernard De Bruyne Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Roberto Diletti; Kaneshka Masdjedi; Joost Daemen; Laurens J C van Zandvoort; Tara Neleman; Jeroen Wilschut; Wijnand K Den Dekker; Rutger J van Bommel; Miguel Lemmert; Isabella Kardys; Paul Cummins; Peter de Jaegere; Felix Zijlstra; Nicolas M Van Mieghem Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Michiel J Bom; Stefan P Schumacher; Roel S Driessen; Pepijn A van Diemen; Henk Everaars; Ruben W de Winter; Peter M van de Ven; Albert C van Rossum; Ralf W Sprengers; Niels J W Verouden; Alexander Nap; Maksymilian P Opolski; Jonathon A Leipsic; Ibrahim Danad; Charles A Taylor; Paul Knaapen Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Takeshi Nishi; Tadashi Murai; Katsuhisa Waseda; Atsushi Hirohata; Andy S C Yong; Martin K C Ng; Tetsuya Amano; Emanuele Barbato; Tsunekazu Kakuta; William F Fearon Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2021-07-14