Jung-Min Ahn1, Duk-Woo Park1, Eun-Seok Shin1, Bon-Kwon Koo1, Chang-Wook Nam1, Joon-Hyung Doh1, Jun Hong Kim1, In-Ho Chae1, Jung-Han Yoon1, Sung-Ho Her1, Ki-Bae Seung1, Woo-Young Chung1, Sang-Yong Yoo1, Jin Bae Lee1, Si Wan Choi1, Kyungil Park1, Taek Jong Hong1, Sang Yeub Lee1, Minkyu Han1, Pil Hyung Lee1, Soo-Jin Kang1, Seung-Whan Lee1, Young-Hak Kim1, Cheol Whan Lee1, Seong-Wook Park1, Seung-Jung Park2. 1. From Heart Institute, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea (J.-M.A., D.-W.P., M.H., PH.L., S.-J.K., S.-W.L., Y.-H.K., C.W.L., S.-W.P., S.-J.P.); Ulsan University Hospital, South Korea (E.-S.S.); Seoul National University Hospital, South Korea (B.-K.K.); Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Daegu, South Korea (C.-W.N.); Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, South Korea (J.-H.D.); Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Busan, South Korea (J.H.K.); Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Bundang, South Korea (I.-H.C.); Wonju Christian Hospital, South Korea (J.-H.Y.); The Catholic University of Korea, Daejeon St Mary's Hospital, South Korea (S.-H.H.); The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, South Korea (K.-B.S.); Seoul Metropolitan Government - Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, South Korea (W.-Y.C.); Gangneung Asan Hospital, South Korea (S.-Y.Y.); Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, South Korea (J.B.L.); Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, South Korea (S.W.C.); Dong-A Medical Center, Busan, South Korea (K.P.); Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, South Korea (T.J.H.); and Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, South Korea (S.Y.L.). 2. From Heart Institute, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea (J.-M.A., D.-W.P., M.H., PH.L., S.-J.K., S.-W.L., Y.-H.K., C.W.L., S.-W.P., S.-J.P.); Ulsan University Hospital, South Korea (E.-S.S.); Seoul National University Hospital, South Korea (B.-K.K.); Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Daegu, South Korea (C.-W.N.); Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, South Korea (J.-H.D.); Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Busan, South Korea (J.H.K.); Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Bundang, South Korea (I.-H.C.); Wonju Christian Hospital, South Korea (J.-H.Y.); The Catholic University of Korea, Daejeon St Mary's Hospital, South Korea (S.-H.H.); The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, South Korea (K.-B.S.); Seoul Metropolitan Government - Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, South Korea (W.-Y.C.); Gangneung Asan Hospital, South Korea (S.-Y.Y.); Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, South Korea (J.B.L.); Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, South Korea (S.W.C.); Dong-A Medical Center, Busan, South Korea (K.P.); Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, South Korea (T.J.H.); and Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, South Korea (S.Y.L.). sjpark@amc.seoul.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the prognosis of deferred and revascularized coronary stenoses after fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement to assess its revascularization threshold in clinical practice. METHODS: The IRIS-FFR registry (Interventional Cardiology Research In-cooperation Society Fractional Flow Reserve) prospectively enrolled 5846 patients with ≥1coronary lesion with FFR measurement. Revascularization was deferred in 6468 lesions and performed in 2165 lesions after FFR assessment. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization) at a median follow-up of 1.9 years and analyzed on a per-lesion basis. A marginal Cox model accounted for correlated data in patients with multiple lesions, and a model to predict per-lesion outcomes was adjusted for confounding factors. RESULTS: For deferred lesions, the risk of major adverse cardiac events demonstrated a significant, inverse relationship with FFR (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.08; P<0.001). However, this relationship was not observed in revascularized lesions (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.02; P=0.70). For lesions with FFR ≥0.76, the risk of major adverse cardiac events was not significantly different between deferred and revascularized lesions. Conversely, in lesions with FFR ≤0.75, the risk of major adverse cardiac events was significantly lower in revascularized lesions than in deferred lesions (for FFR 0.71-0.75, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.89; P=0.021; for FFR ≤0.70, adjusted hazard ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84; P=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: This large, prospective registry showed that the FFR value was linearly associated with the risk of cardiac events in deferred lesions. In addition, revascularization for coronary artery stenosis with a low FFR (≤0.75) was associated with better outcomes than the deferral, whereas for a stenosis with a high FFR (≥0.76), medical treatment would be a reasonable and safe treatment strategy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01366404.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the prognosis of deferred and revascularized coronary stenoses after fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement to assess its revascularization threshold in clinical practice. METHODS: The IRIS-FFR registry (Interventional Cardiology Research In-cooperation Society Fractional Flow Reserve) prospectively enrolled 5846 patients with ≥1coronary lesion with FFR measurement. Revascularization was deferred in 6468 lesions and performed in 2165 lesions after FFR assessment. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization) at a median follow-up of 1.9 years and analyzed on a per-lesion basis. A marginal Cox model accounted for correlated data in patients with multiple lesions, and a model to predict per-lesion outcomes was adjusted for confounding factors. RESULTS: For deferred lesions, the risk of major adverse cardiac events demonstrated a significant, inverse relationship with FFR (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.08; P<0.001). However, this relationship was not observed in revascularized lesions (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.02; P=0.70). For lesions with FFR ≥0.76, the risk of major adverse cardiac events was not significantly different between deferred and revascularized lesions. Conversely, in lesions with FFR ≤0.75, the risk of major adverse cardiac events was significantly lower in revascularized lesions than in deferred lesions (for FFR 0.71-0.75, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.89; P=0.021; for FFR ≤0.70, adjusted hazard ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84; P=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: This large, prospective registry showed that the FFR value was linearly associated with the risk of cardiac events in deferred lesions. In addition, revascularization for coronary artery stenosis with a low FFR (≤0.75) was associated with better outcomes than the deferral, whereas for a stenosis with a high FFR (≥0.76), medical treatment would be a reasonable and safe treatment strategy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01366404.
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
Authors: Joo Myung Lee; Ki Hong Choi; Bon-Kwon Koo; Hakim-Moulay Dehbi; Joon-Hyung Doh; Chang-Wook Nam; Eun-Seok Shin; Christopher M Cook; Rasha Al-Lamee; Ricardo Petraco; Sayan Sen; Iqbal S Malik; Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Hernán Mejía-Rentería; Eduardo Alegria-Barrero; Ali Alghamdi; John Altman; Sérgio B Baptista; Ravinay Bhindi; Waldemar Bojara; Salvatore Brugaletta; Pedro Canas Silva; Carlo Di Mario; Andrejs Erglis; Robert T Gerber; Olaf Going; Tobias Härle; Farrel Hellig; Ciro Indolfi; Luc Janssens; Allen Jeremias; Rajesh K Kharbanda; Ahmed Khashaba; Yuetsu Kikuta; Florian Krackhardt; Mika Laine; Sam J Lehman; Hitoshi Matsuo; Martijin Meuwissen; Giampaolo Niccoli; Jan J Piek; Flavo Ribichini; Habib Samady; James Sapontis; Arnold H Seto; Murat Sezer; Andrew S P Sharp; Jasvindar Singh; Hiroaki Takashima; Suneel Talwar; Nobuhiro Tanaka; Kare Tang; Eric Van Belle; Niels van Royen; Hugo Vinhas; Christiaan J Vrints; Darren Walters; Hiroyoshi Yokoi; Bruce Samuels; Chris Buller; Manesh R Patel; Patrick Serruys; Javier Escaned; Justin E Davies Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Michael Michail; Hakim-Moulay Dehbi; Nitesh Nerlekar; Justin E Davies; Andrew S P Sharp; Suneel Talwar; James D Cameron; Adam J Brown; Dennis T Wong; Anthony Mathur; Alun D Hughes; Om Narayan Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: M Kruska; C Fastner; J F Scheitz; A Kolb; M Rutsch; T Papavassiliu; M Borggrefe; A Alonso; I Akin; K Szabo; S Baumann Journal: Herz Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 1.443