Anne Langhoff Thuesen1, Lars Peter Riber2, Karsten Tange Veien3, Evald Høj Christiansen4, Svend Eggert Jensen5, Ivy Modrau6, Jan Jesper Andreasen7, Anders Junker3, Poul Erik Mortensen2, Lisette Okkels Jensen3. 1. Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: anne@thuesen.com. 2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 3. Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 4. Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark. 5. Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 6. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark. 7. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is uncertain, and stenosis assessments usually rely on visual estimates of lesion severity. OBJECTIVES: This randomized clinical trial evaluated graft patency and clinical outcome after FFR-guided CABG versus angiography-guided CABG. METHODS: A total of 100 patients referred for CABG were randomly assigned to FFR-guided or angiography-guided CABG. Based on the coronary angiogram, a heart team made a graft plan for all patients, and FFR evaluations were performed. In FFR-guided CABG, coronary lesions with FFR >0.80 were deferred, and a new graft plan was designed accordingly, whereas the surgeon was blinded to the FFR values in patients who underwent angiography-guided CABG. The primary endpoint was graft failure in the percentage of all grafts after 6 months. RESULTS: Angiographic follow-up at 6 months was available for 72 patients (39 vs. 33 in the FFR-guided and angiography-guided groups, respectively). Graft failures of all grafts were similar in both groups (16% vs. 12%; p = 0.97). Rates of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also similar in the study groups, and no difference was seen in revascularization before angiographic follow-up. After 6 months, deferred lesions (n = 24) showed a significant reduction in mean FFR from index to follow-up (0.89 ± 0.05 vs. 0.81 ± 0.11; p = 0.002). Index FFR did not influence graft patency. CONCLUSIONS:FFR-guided CABG had similar graft failure rates and clinical outcomes as angiography-guided CABG. However, FFR was reduced significantly after 6 months in deferred lesions. (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography Randomization for Graft Optimization [FARGO]; NCT02477371).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is uncertain, and stenosis assessments usually rely on visual estimates of lesion severity. OBJECTIVES: This randomized clinical trial evaluated graft patency and clinical outcome after FFR-guided CABG versus angiography-guided CABG. METHODS: A total of 100 patients referred for CABG were randomly assigned to FFR-guided or angiography-guided CABG. Based on the coronary angiogram, a heart team made a graft plan for all patients, and FFR evaluations were performed. In FFR-guided CABG, coronary lesions with FFR >0.80 were deferred, and a new graft plan was designed accordingly, whereas the surgeon was blinded to the FFR values in patients who underwent angiography-guided CABG. The primary endpoint was graft failure in the percentage of all grafts after 6 months. RESULTS: Angiographic follow-up at 6 months was available for 72 patients (39 vs. 33 in the FFR-guided and angiography-guided groups, respectively). Graft failures of all grafts were similar in both groups (16% vs. 12%; p = 0.97). Rates of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also similar in the study groups, and no difference was seen in revascularization before angiographic follow-up. After 6 months, deferred lesions (n = 24) showed a significant reduction in mean FFR from index to follow-up (0.89 ± 0.05 vs. 0.81 ± 0.11; p = 0.002). Index FFR did not influence graft patency. CONCLUSIONS: FFR-guided CABG had similar graft failure rates and clinical outcomes as angiography-guided CABG. However, FFR was reduced significantly after 6 months in deferred lesions. (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography Randomization for Graft Optimization [FARGO]; NCT02477371).
Authors: Andreas Seraphim; Kristopher D Knott; Joao B Augusto; Katia Menacho; Sara Tyebally; Benjamin Dowsing; Sanjeev Bhattacharyya; Leon J Menezes; Daniel A Jones; Rakesh Uppal; James C Moon; Charlotte Manisty Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-12-23
Authors: Mariusz Tomaniak; Kaneshka Masdjedi; Tara Neleman; Ibrahim T Kucuk; Alise Vermaire; Laurens J C van Zandvoort; Nick Van Boven; Bas M van Dalen; Loe Kie Soei; Wijnand K den Dekker; Isabella Kardys; Jeroen M Wilschut; Roberto Diletti; Felix Zijlstra; Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Joost Daemen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Dario Tino Bertolone; Emanuele Gallinoro; Giuseppe Esposito; Pasquale Paolisso; Konstantinos Bermpeis; Cristina De Colle; Davide Fabbricatore; Niya Mileva; Chiara Valeriano; Daniel Munhoz; Marta Belmonte; Marc Vanderheyden; Jozef Bartunek; Jeroen Sonck; Eric Wyffels; Carlos Collet; Costantino Mancusi; Carmine Morisco; Nicola De Luca; Bernard De Bruyne; Emanuele Barbato Journal: High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev Date: 2022-02-11