Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiographically-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Abstract

BackgroundThe 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. ObjectivesThis randomized clinical trial evaluated graft patency and clinical outcome after FFR-guided CABG versus angiography-guided CABG. MethodsA 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. ResultsAngiographic 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. ConclusionsFFR-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)