Real-world comparison of intracoronary imaging and fractional flow reserve measurements on outcomes of semi-urgent and elective percutaneous coronary intervention in a multi-ethnic asian population

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Intracoronary imaging and fractional flow reserve measurements (FFR) are helpful in optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with stable coronary artery disease, but their comparative efficacy is not well described. Furthermore, few studies involve Asian patients in a real-world context. Purpose This study aims to compare the use of intracoronary imaging and fractional flow reserve measurements on the outcomes of semi-urgent and elective PCI in a multi-ethnic Asian population. Methods This was a retrospective database study of patients who underwent semi-urgent and elective PCI from 1st Jan 2014 to 31st Dec 2015 at a tertiary academic centre. The patients were split into 2 groups – imaging-guided (IG) consisting of intravascular ultrasound guided PCI or optical coherence tomography guided PCI and physiology-guided (PG) which included FFR-guided PCI. Patients who underwent both IG PCI and PG PCI were excluded. Incidence rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (Subsequent myocardial infarction, congestive cardiac failure, all-cause mortality) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (Subsequent myocardial infarction, congestive cardiac failure, stroke or transient ischemic attack and all-cause mortality) were compared between the two groups. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to control for potential bias. Results Of 1,732 patients studied, the median age was 61.0 years (IQR 53.0 to 68.0) and 336 were female (19.4%). There were 266 patients (15.4%) in IG and 186 (10.7%) in PG. The patients were followed up for 33 ±37 months. A total of 133 pairs were matched. In the unmatched cohort, there was no statistical difference between the IG and PG group in the incidence of MACE (24.2% vs 15.5%, p= 0.099) and MACCE (26.6% vs 17.7%, p= 0.112). Baseline and procedural characteristics were balanced between the IG and PG groups. In the matched cohort, the incidence rates of MACE (11.3% vs 7.5%, p= 0.383) and MACCE (15.8% vs 12.8%, p=0.596) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusion In a real-world multi-ethnic Asian registry of semi-urgent and elective PCI patients, there was no difference in outcomes whether patients underwent the use of intracoronary imaging or fractional flow reserve measurements during PCI.