» Articles » PMID: 33911143

Non-randomized Comparison Between Revascularization and Deferral for Intermediate Coronary Stenosis with Abnormal Fractional Flow Reserve and Preserved Coronary Flow Reserve

Abstract

Limited data are available regarding comparative prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus deferral of revascularization in patients with intermediate stenosis with abnormal fractional flow reserve (FFR) but preserved coronary flow reserve (CFR). From the International Collaboration of Comprehensive Physiologic Assessment Registry (NCT03690713), a total of 330 patients (338 vessels) who had coronary stenosis with FFR ≤ 0.80 but CFR > 2.0 were selected for the current analysis. Patient-level clinical outcome was assessed by major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 5 years, a composite of all-cause death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or target-vessel revascularization. Among the study population, 231 patients (233 vessels) underwent PCI and 99 patients (105 vessels) were deferred. During 5 years of follow-up, cumulative incidence of MACE was 13.0% (31 patients) without significant difference between PCI and deferred groups (12.7% vs. 14.0%, adjusted HR 1.301, 95% CI 0.611-2.769, P = 0.495). Multiple sensitivity analyses by propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting also showed no significant difference in patient-level MACE and vessel-specific MI or revascularization. In this hypothesis-generating study, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between PCI and deferred groups among patients with intermediate stenosis with FFR ≤ 0.80 but CFR > 2.0. Further study is needed to confirm this finding.Clinical Trial Registration: International Collaboration of Comprehensive Physiologic Assessment Registry (NCT03690713; registration date: 10/01/2018).

Citing Articles

Accuracy and Reproducibility of Coronary Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve in the Assessment of Coronary Lesion Severity.

Yang G, Li L, Peng X, Tang G, Zheng N, Zhao Y Int J Gen Med. 2023; 16:3805-3814.

PMID: 37662502 PMC: 10473419. DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S413991.

References
1.
de Bruyne B, Bartunek J, Sys S, Pijls N, Heyndrickx G, Wijns W . Simultaneous coronary pressure and flow velocity measurements in humans. Feasibility, reproducibility, and hemodynamic dependence of coronary flow velocity reserve, hyperemic flow versus pressure slope index, and fractional flow reserve. Circulation. 1996; 94(8):1842-9. DOI: 10.1161/01.cir.94.8.1842. View

2.
van Nunen L, Zimmermann F, Tonino P, Barbato E, Baumbach A, Engstrom T . Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 386(10006):1853-60. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00057-4. View

3.
Neumann F, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning A, Benedetto U . 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2018; 40(2):87-165. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394. View

4.
Gould K, Johnson N, Bateman T, Beanlands R, Bengel F, Bober R . Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(18):1639-1653. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.076. View

5.
Johnson N, Toth G, Lai D, Zhu H, Acar G, Agostoni P . Prognostic value of fractional flow reserve: linking physiologic severity to clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(16):1641-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.07.973. View