Stephane Fournier1,2,3, Giovanni Ciccarelli1, Gabor G Toth4, Anastasios Milkas1, Panagiotis Xaplanteris1, Pim A L Tonino5, William F Fearon6, Nico H J Pijls5,7, Emanuele Barbato1,3, Bernard De Bruyne1,2. 1. Cardiovascular Center Aalst, Aalst, Belgium. 2. Department of Cardiology, Lausanne University Center Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. 4. University Heart Centre Graz, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria. 5. Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 6. Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California. 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Abstract
Importance: Whether the improvement in myocardial perfusion provided by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with symptomatic relief or improved outcomes has not been well investigated. Objective: To investigate the prognostic value of the improvement in fractional flow reserve (FFR) after PCI (ΔFFR) on patients' symptoms and 2-year outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a post hoc analysis of data from patients undergoing FFR-guided PCI in the randomized clinical trials Fractional Flow Reserve vs Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) 1 (NCT00267774; 2009) and FAME 2 (NCT01132495; 2012), with inclusion of 2 years of follow-up data. The FAME 1 trial included patients with multivessel coronary artery disease from 20 medical centers in Europe and the United States. The FAME 2 trial included patients with stable coronary artery disease involving up to 3 vessels from 28 sites in Europe and North America. Lesions from the group in the FAME 1 trial from whom FFR was measured and the group in the FAME 2 trial who received FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy were analyzed. Data analysis occurred from May 2017 to May 2018. Interventions: Measure of post-PCI FFR. Main Outcomes and Measures: Vessel-oriented clinical events at 2 years, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-associated myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Results: This analysis included 639 patients from whom pre-PCI and post-PCI FFR values were available. Of their 837 lesions, 277 were classified into the lowest tertile (ΔFFR≤0.18), 282 into the middle tertile (0.19≤ΔFFR≤0.31), and 278 into the highest tertile (ΔFFR>0.31). Vessel-oriented clinical events were significantly more frequent in the lowest tertile (n = 25 of 277 [9.1%]) compared with the highest tertile (n = 13 of 278 [4.7%]; hazard ratio, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.03-3.92]; P = .04). In addition, a significant association was observed between ΔFFR and symptomatic relief (odds ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.02-1.74]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials, the larger the improvement in FFR, the larger the symptomatic relief and the lower the event rate. This suggests that measuring FFR before and after PCI provides clinically useful information.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Whether the improvement in myocardial perfusion provided by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with symptomatic relief or improved outcomes has not been well investigated. Objective: To investigate the prognostic value of the improvement in fractional flow reserve (FFR) after PCI (ΔFFR) on patients' symptoms and 2-year outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a post hoc analysis of data from patients undergoing FFR-guided PCI in the randomized clinical trials Fractional Flow Reserve vs Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) 1 (NCT00267774; 2009) and FAME 2 (NCT01132495; 2012), with inclusion of 2 years of follow-up data. The FAME 1 trial included patients with multivessel coronary artery disease from 20 medical centers in Europe and the United States. The FAME 2 trial included patients with stable coronary artery disease involving up to 3 vessels from 28 sites in Europe and North America. Lesions from the group in the FAME 1 trial from whom FFR was measured and the group in the FAME 2 trial who received FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy were analyzed. Data analysis occurred from May 2017 to May 2018. Interventions: Measure of post-PCI FFR. Main Outcomes and Measures: Vessel-oriented clinical events at 2 years, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-associated myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Results: This analysis included 639 patients from whom pre-PCI and post-PCI FFR values were available. Of their 837 lesions, 277 were classified into the lowest tertile (ΔFFR≤0.18), 282 into the middle tertile (0.19≤ΔFFR≤0.31), and 278 into the highest tertile (ΔFFR>0.31). Vessel-oriented clinical events were significantly more frequent in the lowest tertile (n = 25 of 277 [9.1%]) compared with the highest tertile (n = 13 of 278 [4.7%]; hazard ratio, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.03-3.92]; P = .04). In addition, a significant association was observed between ΔFFR and symptomatic relief (odds ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.02-1.74]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials, the larger the improvement in FFR, the larger the symptomatic relief and the lower the event rate. This suggests that measuring FFR before and after PCI provides clinically useful information.
Authors: James K Min; Allison Dunning; Fay Y Lin; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Matthew J Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Victor Cheng; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Augustin Delago; Martin Hadamitzky; Joerg Hausleiter; Philipp Kaufmann; Erica Maffei; Gilbert Raff; Leslee J Shaw; Todd Villines; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rasha Al-Lamee; James P Howard; Matthew J Shun-Shin; David Thompson; Hakim-Moulay Dehbi; Sayan Sen; Sukhjinder Nijjer; Ricardo Petraco; John Davies; Thomas Keeble; Kare Tang; Iqbal S Malik; Christopher Cook; Yousif Ahmad; Andrew S P Sharp; Robert Gerber; Christopher Baker; Raffi Kaprielian; Suneel Talwar; Ravi Assomull; Graham Cole; Niall G Keenan; Gajen Kanaganayagam; Joban Sehmi; Roland Wensel; Frank E Harrell; Jamil Mayet; Simon A Thom; Justin E Davies; Darrel P Francis Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Panagiotis Xaplanteris; Stephane Fournier; Nico H J Pijls; William F Fearon; Emanuele Barbato; Pim A L Tonino; Thomas Engstrøm; Stefan Kääb; Jan-Henk Dambrink; Gilles Rioufol; Gabor G Toth; Zsolt Piroth; Nils Witt; Ole Fröbert; Petr Kala; Axel Linke; Nicola Jagic; Martin Mates; Kreton Mavromatis; Habib Samady; Anand Irimpen; Keith Oldroyd; Gianluca Campo; Martina Rothenbühler; Peter Jüni; Bernard De Bruyne Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ziad A Ali; Akiko Maehara; Philippe Généreux; Richard A Shlofmitz; Franco Fabbiocchi; Tamim M Nazif; Giulio Guagliumi; Perwaiz M Meraj; Fernando Alfonso; Habib Samady; Takashi Akasaka; Eric B Carlson; Massoud A Leesar; Mitsuaki Matsumura; Melek Ozgu Ozan; Gary S Mintz; Ori Ben-Yehuda; Gregg W Stone Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-10-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Pim A L Tonino; Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Uwe Siebert; Fumiaki Ikeno; Marcel van' t Veer; Volker Klauss; Ganesh Manoharan; Thomas Engstrøm; Keith G Oldroyd; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A MacCarthy; William F Fearon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lokien X van Nunen; Frederik M Zimmermann; Pim A L Tonino; Emanuele Barbato; Andreas Baumbach; Thomas Engstrøm; Volker Klauss; Philip A MacCarthy; Ganesh Manoharan; Keith G Oldroyd; Peter N Ver Lee; Marcel Van't Veer; William F Fearon; Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-08-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Bindu Kalesan; Emanuele Barbato; Pim A L Tonino; Zsolt Piroth; Nikola Jagic; Sven Möbius-Winkler; Sven Mobius-Winckler; Gilles Rioufol; Nils Witt; Petr Kala; Philip MacCarthy; Thomas Engström; Keith G Oldroyd; Kreton Mavromatis; Ganesh Manoharan; Peter Verlee; Ole Frobert; Nick Curzen; Jane B Johnson; Peter Jüni; William F Fearon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tom Adriaenssens; Michael Joner; Thea C Godschalk; Nikesh Malik; Fernando Alfonso; Erion Xhepa; Dries De Cock; Kenichi Komukai; Tomohisa Tada; Javier Cuesta; Vasile Sirbu; Laurent J Feldman; Franz-Josef Neumann; Alison H Goodall; Ton Heestermans; Ian Buysschaert; Ota Hlinomaz; Ann Belmans; Walter Desmet; Jurrien M Ten Berg; Anthony H Gershlick; Steffen Massberg; Adnan Kastrati; Giulio Guagliumi; Robert A Byrne Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rasha K Al-Lamee; Matthew J Shun-Shin; James P Howard; Alexandra N Nowbar; Christopher Rajkumar; David Thompson; Sayan Sen; Sukhjinder Nijjer; Ricardo Petraco; John Davies; Thomas Keeble; Kare Tang; Iqbal Malik; Nina Bual; Christopher Cook; Yousif Ahmad; Henry Seligman; Andrew S P Sharp; Robert Gerber; Suneel Talwar; Ravi Assomull; Graham Cole; Niall G Keenan; Gajen Kanaganayagam; Joban Sehmi; Roland Wensel; Frank E Harrell; Jamil Mayet; Simon Thom; Justin E Davies; Darrel P Francis Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Pepijn A van Diemen; Ruben W de Winter; Stefan P Schumacher; Michiel J Bom; Roel S Driessen; Henk Everaars; Ruurt A Jukema; Yvemarie B Somsen; Lenka Popelkova; Peter M van de Ven; Albert C van Rossum; Tim P van de Hoef; Stefan de Haan; Koen M Marques; Jorrit S Lemkes; Yolande Appelman; Alexander Nap; Niels J Verouden; Maksymilian P Opolski; Ibrahim Danad; Paul Knaapen Journal: J Interv Cardiol Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 2.279
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