Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography Research Articles

Outcomes Based on Angiographic vs Functional Significance of Complex 3-Vessel Coronary Disease: FAME 3 Trial

BackgroundThe functional SYNTAX score (FSS), which incorporates functional information as assessed by fractional flow reserve (FFR), is a better predictor of outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with less complex coronary artery disease (CAD). ObjectivesThis study sought to test the prognostic value of the FSS in patients with complex CAD eligible for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). MethodsThe FAME 3 (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 3) trial compared FFR-guided PCI with CABG in patients with angiographic 3-vessel CAD. In this prespecified substudy, the angiographic core laboratory calculated the SYNTAX score (SS) and then the FSS by eliminating lesions that were not significant based on FFR. Outcomes in the PCI patients based on the FSS and the SS were compared to each other and to the patients treated with CABG. ResultsThe FSS reclassified more than one-quarter of patients from an SS >22 to an FSS ≤22. In the 50% of PCI patients who had an FSS ≤22, the primary endpoint occurred at a similar rate to patients treated with CABG (P = 0.77). The primary endpoint in patients without functionally significant 3-vessel CAD was similar to the CABG group (P = 0.97). The rate of myocardial infarction and revascularization among all deferred lesions was 0.5% and 3.2%, respectively. ConclusionsBy measuring the FSS, one can identify 50% of patients who have a similar outcome at 1 year with PCI compared with CABG. Lesions deferred from PCI based on FFR have a low event rate.

Clinical Outcome of Revascularization Deferral With Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve: A 5-Year Follow-Up Substudy From the iFR-SWEDEHEART Trial.

Background Although physiology-based assessment of coronary artery stenosis using instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) are established methods of guiding coronary revascularization, its clinical outcome in long-term deferral needs further evaluation, especially with acute coronary syndrome as a clinical presentation. The aim was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcome of deferral of revascularization based on iFR or FFR. Methods and Results This is a substudy of the iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trial, where patients deferred from revascularization from each study arm were selected. Nine hundred eight patients deferred from coronary revascularization with iFR (n=473) and FFR (n=435) were followed for 5 years. The national quality registry, SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies), was used for patient data collection and clinical follow-up. The end point was major adverse cardiac events and their individual components all-cause death, cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. No significant difference was found in major adverse cardiac events (iFR 18.6% versus FFR 16.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.79-1.48]; P=0.63) or their individual components. Conclusions No differences in clinical outcomes after 5-year follow-up were noted when comparing iFR versus FFR as methods for deferral of coronary revascularization in patients presenting with stable angina pectoris and acute coronary syndrome. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02166736.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Fractional-Flow-Reserve- and Angiography-Guided Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for intermediate coronary stenosis in the setting of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is recommended by the latest 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guideline (class of recommendation I, level of evidence A).1 This recommendation is predominantly derived from the landmark Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) trial.

TCT-281 Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography Guided Complete Revascularisation in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

TCT-281 Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography Guided Complete Revascularisation in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Treatment of three-vessel disease in light of the results of the FAME-3 study

Previous randomized clinical studies have shown the superiority of coronary artery bypass grafting over percutaneous coronary intervention in the treatment of severe multivessel disease mainly because of a reduced need for repeat revascularization but, in some, a mortality benefit and reduced rate of myocardial infarction were shown among those undergoing surgery. The late breaker multicentric, randomized FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation)-3 study, involving 1500 patients, sought to determine whether fractional flow reserve guided percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of new-generation drug-eluting stents was non -inferior to present-day coronary bypass surgery with respect to the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and repeat revascularization at one year. The authors who were particularly active in the FAME-3 trial describe the study setting, the characteristics of the patient population, the procedures, and the results. The FAME-3 study failed to show the non-inferiority of percutaneous coronary intervention to bypass surgery in the treatment of three vessel disease using the predetermined margin. The authors present a detailed analysis of the possible reasons and some important secondary results. These include a lack of significant difference between the two arms with respect to `hard end points' and the significantly higher perioperative morbidity of the surgical group. Albeit our clinical practice should be based on the analysis of the primary end point, informing patients and shared decision making must include these secondary results when individual revascularization strategies are planned.

Quality of Life After Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided PCI Compared With Coronary Bypass Surgery.

Previous studies have shown that quality of life improves after coronary revascularization more so after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) than after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of fractional flow reserve guidance and current generation, zotarolimus drug-eluting stents on quality of life after PCI compared with CABG. The FAME 3 trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) is a multicenter, international trial including 1500 patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease who were randomly assigned to either CABG or fractional flow reserve-guided PCI. Quality of life was measured using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire at baseline and 1 and 12 months. The Canadian Cardiovascular Class angina grade and working status were assessed at the same time points and at 6 months. The primary objective was to compare EQ-5D summary index at 12 months. Secondary end points included angina grade and work status. The EQ-5D summary index at 12 months did not differ between the PCI and CABG groups (difference, 0.001 [95% CI, -0.016 to 0.017]; P=0.946). The trajectory of EQ-5D during the 12 months differed (P<0.001) between PCI and CABG: at 1 month, EQ-5D was 0.063 (95% CI, 0.047 to 0.079) higher in the PCI group. A similar trajectory was found for the EQ (EuroQol) visual analogue scale. The proportion of patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Class 2 or greater angina at 12 months was 6.2% versus 3.1% (odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 0.96-6.8]), respectively, in the PCI group compared with the CABG group. A greater percentage of younger patients (<65 years old) were working at 12 months in the PCI group compared with the CABG group (68% versus 57%; odds ratio, 3.9 [95% CI, 1.7-8.8]). In the FAME 3 trial, quality of life after fractional flow reserve-guided PCI with current generation drug-eluting stents compared with CABG was similar at 1 year. The rate of significant angina was low in both groups and not significantly different. The trajectory of improvement in quality of life was significantly better after PCI, as was working status in those <65 years old. URL: https://www. gov; Unique identifier: NCT02100722.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Angina in Fractional Flow Reserve- Versus Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: FARGO Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography Randomization for Graft Optimization).

In coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) is insufficiently investigated. Stenosis assessment usually relies on visual estimates of lesion severity. This study evaluated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and angina after FFR- versus angiography-guided CABG. One hundred patients referred for CABG were randomized to FFR- or angiography-guided CABG. In the FFR group, lesions with FFR>0.80 were deferred, while the surgeon was blinded to the FFR values in the angiography group. Before and 6 months after CABG, HRQoL was assessed by the health state classifier EQ-5D of the EuroQoL 5-level instrument and angina status based on the Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification system were registered. Six-month angiography included FFR evaluations of deferred lesions. In total, completed EQ-5D of the EuroQoL 5-level instrument questionnaires were available in 86 patients (43 in the FFR versus 43 in the angiography-guided group). HRQoL was significantly improved and angina significantly decreased from baseline to 6 months after CABG with no difference between the randomization groups. Graft failure rates and clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. Patients with graft failure or FFR<0.80 of the previous deferred lesions had significantly lower visual analogue scale scores (78.7±14.2 versus 86.8±14.7, P=0.004) and more angina compared with patients without graft failure or FFR≥0.80 at 6-month follow-up. FFR- versus angiography-guided CABG demonstrated similar improvements in HRQoL and angina 6 months after CABG. Graft failure or low FFR in deferred lesions were associated with low HRQoL and angina. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02477371.

Clinical Implications and Debates on the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches Trial.

The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) was eagerly awaited study in the field of ischemic heart disease. Following the presentation and publication of ISCHEMIA, multiple opinions and viewpoints get complicated. The ongoing debates have been including the relevance of coronary revascularization, noninvasive diagnostic methods, and invasive ischemic testing in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). Prior to ISCHEMIA, observational studies indicated the potential of coronary revascularization for improving clinical outcomes, while the randomized Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial did not support the plausible concept. Although the Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) 2 trial implied the superiority of percutaneous coronary intervention over medical therapy alone, the clinical relevance of coronary revascularization to improve outcomes and quality of life has been questioned. As a consequence, the ISCHEMIA trial did not demonstrate clear benefits in reducing clinical events but showed antianginal effects of revascularization. This landmark trial also suggested the difficulties of noninvasive ischemia testing rather than computed tomography angiography. Despite the complex results, the ISCHEMIA trial may simplify the clinical indications of coronary revascularization in patients with SIHD. Future publications from the ISCHEMIA trial and debates on the results will sharpen our thinking and understanding.

Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiographically-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

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)

Fractional Flow Reserve and Quality-of-Life Improvement After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

Whether the benefit in quality of life (QOL) after percutaneous coronary intervention depends on the severity of the stenosis as determined by fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains unknown. This study sought to investigate the relationship between FFR values and improvement in QOL. From the FAME 1 and 2 trials (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation), we identified 706 stable patients with coronary artery disease who had at least 1 lesion with an FFR≤0.80 that was treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and 185 patients with coronary artery disease who had no lesion with an FFR≤0.80 and were treated medically who served as a reference group. QOL was assessed by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions index at baseline, 1 month, and 1 year. We assessed the relationship between QOL improvement (defined as the change in European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions index from baseline) and FFR as a continuous value and according to abnormal FFR tertile. QOL improved significantly after percutaneous coronary intervention in each abnormal FFR tertile, whereas it did not change in the reference group. The lowest abnormal FFR subgroup had the greatest improvement in QOL at 1 month ( P<0.001). In mixed-effects models for repeated measures, lower FFR ( P=0.002 for 1 month and 0.049 for 1 year), greater delta FFR ( P=0.021 for 1 month and 0.025 for 1 year), and higher angina class ( P=0.001 for 1 month and <0.001 for 1 year) were associated with the greatest magnitude of QOL improvement at both 1 month and 1 year. Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, FFR and angina severity predict QOL improvement after percutaneous coronary intervention. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT00267774 and NCT01132495.

High Coronary Shear Stress in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Predicts Myocardial Infarction

BackgroundCoronary lesions with low fractional flow reserve (FFR) that are treated medically are associated with higher revascularization rates. High wall shear stress (WSS) has been linked with increased plaque vulnerability. ObjectivesThis study investigated the prognostic value of WSS measured in the proximal segments of lesions (WSSprox) to predict myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and hemodynamically significant lesions. The authors hypothesized that in patients with low FFR and stable CAD, higher WSSprox would predict MI. MethodsAmong 441 patients in the FAME II (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation II) trial with FFR ≤0.80 who were randomized to medical therapy alone, 34 (8%) had subsequent MI within 3 years. Patients with vessel-related MI and adequate angiograms for 3-dimensional reconstruction (n = 29) were propensity matched to a control group with no MI (n = 29) by using demographic and clinical variables. Coronary lesions were divided into proximal, middle, and distal, along with 5-mm upstream and downstream segments. WSS was calculated for each segment. ResultsMedian age was 62 years, and 46 (79%) were male. In the marginal Cox model, whereas lower FFR showed a trend (hazard ratio: 0.084; p = 0.064), higher WSSprox (hazard ratio: 1.234; p = 0.002, C-index = 0.65) predicted MI. Adding WSSprox to FFR resulted in a significant increase in global chi-square for predicting MI (p = 0.045), a net reclassification improvement of 0.69 (p = 0.005), and an integrated discrimination index of 0.11 (p = 0.010). ConclusionsIn patients with stable CAD and hemodynamically significant lesions, higher WSS in the proximal segments of atherosclerotic lesions is predictive of MI and has incremental prognostic value over FFR.

Prognostic Value of the Residual SYNTAX Score After Functionally Complete Revascularization in ACS

BackgroundThe residual SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score (RSS) quantitatively assesses angiographic completeness of revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and has been shown to be a predictor of events after angiography-guided PCI. In stable patients undergoing functionally complete revascularization with fractional flow reserve (FFR) guidance, RSS did not predict outcome. Whether this is also true in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is unknown. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine whether the RSS could predict outcomes in patients with ACS. MethodsFrom the DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI (Primary PCI in Patients With ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: Treatment of Culprit Lesion Only or Complete Revascularization), FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation), and FAMOUS-NSTEMI (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiographically Guided Management to Optimise Outcomes in Unstable Coronary Syndromes) trials, 547 patients presented with ACS and underwent functionally complete revascularization. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as the composite endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization. The RSS was based on the recalculation of the SYNTAX score after PCI. We compared differences in 2-year outcome by the RSS subgroups: 0, 1 to <5, 5 to <10, ≥10 (RSS = 0 represents angiographically complete revascularization). ResultsThe study population consisted of 271 patients with unstable angina/non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 276 with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The mean RSS was 6.7 ± 5.8. MACE at 2 years occurred in 69 patients (12.6%). Patients with and without MACE had similar RSS after PCI (RSS: 7.2 ± 5.5 vs. 6.6 ± 5.9; p = 0.23). Kaplan-Meier curve analysis showed a similar incidence of MACE regardless of the RSS subgroups (p = 0.54). With and without adjustment of clinical variables, RSS was not a significant predictor of MACE or of each component of MACE. ConclusionsAfter complete revascularization of functionally significant stenosis by FFR, the extent of residual angiographic disease is not associated with subsequent ischemic events in patients presenting with ACS. These results suggest that the concept of functionally complete revascularization is applicable even in ACS patients. (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation [F.A.M.E.] NCT00267774; Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiographically Guided Management to Optimise Outcomes in Unstable Coronary Syndromes [FAMOUS NSTEMI] NCT01764334; Primary PCI in Patients With ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: Treatment of Culprit Lesion Only or Complete Revascularization [DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI]; NCT01960933)

Correction to: Angiography Versus Hemodynamics to Predict the Natural History of Coronary Stenoses: Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation 2 Substudy.

HomeCirculationVol. 137, No. 22Correction to: Angiography Versus Hemodynamics to Predict the Natural History of Coronary Stenoses: Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation 2 Substudy Free AccessCorrectionPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessCorrectionPDF/EPUBCorrection to: Angiography Versus Hemodynamics to Predict the Natural History of Coronary Stenoses: Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation 2 Substudy Originally published29 May 2018https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000584Circulation. 2018;137:e820This article corrects the followingAngiography Versus Hemodynamics to Predict the Natural History of Coronary StenosesIn the article by Ciccarelli et al, “Angiography Versus Hemodynamics to Predict the Natural History of Coronary Stenoses: Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation 2 Substudy,” which published online November 21, 2017, and appeared in the April 3, 2018, issue of the journal (Circulation. 2018;137:1475–1485, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028782), several corrections were needed.Table 1 included several errors in which the same numbers were repeated across rows.In Figure 1, the points on the vertical line corresponding to an FFR of 0.80 were incorrectly colored in green and blue (negative concordance and mismatch); they are now correctly colored in red or orange (positive concordance and mismatch). This same error has been corrected in Supplemental Figure 1B.Figure 3 reports risk ratios, which were incorrectly labeled as hazard ratios.These corrections have been made to the current online version of the article, which is available at http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/137/14/1475.The authors regret these errors.Footnoteshttp://circ.ahajournals.org Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesAngiography Versus Hemodynamics to Predict the Natural History of Coronary StenosesGiovanni Ciccarelli, et al. Circulation. 2018;137:1475-1485 May 29, 2018Vol 137, Issue 22 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000584PMID: 29844082 Originally publishedMay 29, 2018 PDF download Advertisement

Comment on: “Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Three-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 2 Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation)”

Comment on: “Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Three-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 2 Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation)”

The Prognostic Value of Residual Coronary Stenoses After Functionally Complete Revascularization

BackgroundThe residual SYNTAX score (RSS) and SYNTAX revascularization index (SRI) quantitatively assess angiographic completeness of revascularization for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Whether residual angiographic disease remains of prognostic importance after “functionally” complete revascularization with fractional flow reserve (FFR) guidance is unknown. ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate the prognostic value of the RSS and SRI after FFR-guided functionally complete revascularization. MethodsFrom the FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cohort of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) trial, the RSS and SRI were calculated in 427 patients after functionally complete revascularization. The RSS was defined as the SYNTAX score (SS) recalculated after PCI. The SRI was calculated as: 100 × (1 − RSS/baseline SS) (%). We compared differences in 1- and 2-year outcomes among patients with RSS of 0, >0 to 4, >4 to 8, and >8, and with SRI of 100%, 50% to <100%, and 0 to <50%. ResultsThe mean baseline SS, RSS, and SRI were 14.4 ± 7.2, 6.5 ± 5.8, and 55.1 ± 32.5%, respectively. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year occurred in 53 patients (12.4%). Patients with MACE had higher SS than those without (18.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 11.0 to 21.0] vs. 12.0 [IQR: 9.0 to 18.0], p = 0.001), but had similar RSS and SRI after PCI (RSS: 6.0 [IQR: 3.0 to 10.0] vs. 5.0 [IQR: 2.0 to 9.5], p = 0.51 and SRI: 60.0% [IQR: 40.9% to 78.9%] vs. 58.8% [IQR: 26.7% to 81.8%], p = 0.24, respectively). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed similar 1-year incidence of MACE with RSS/SRI stratifications (log-rank p = 0.55 and p = 0.54, respectively). Results were similar with 2-year outcome data analysis. ConclusionsAfter functionally complete revascularization with FFR guidance, residual angiographic lesions that are not functionally significant do not reflect residual ischemia or predict a worse outcome, supporting functionally complete, rather than angiographically complete, revascularization. (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation [FAME]; NCT00267774)

The FAME Trials: Impact on Clinical Decision Making.

Careful and stepwise evaluation of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) index has been performed over the years, culminating in the landmark Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) and Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Plus Optimal Medical Treatment Versus Optimal Medical Treatment Alone in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease (FAME II) trials. Findings from these studies demonstrated unequivocally the overall inadequacy of angiography versus FFR to correctly assess stenosis severity. Thus, proof of concept and clinical applicability was established beyond debate and will be discussed here.

TCT-37 The Prognostic Value of the Residual SYNTAX Score after “Functionally” Complete Revascularization: Insights from the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) Trial

The residual SYNTAX score is a recently developed scoring system based on recalculating the SYNTAX score after PCI, in which a higher score predicts a worse long term outcome, reflecting the impact of residual coronary disease after PCI and suggesting the importance of complete revascularization (CR

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

In the Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study, fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for up to 2 years of follow-up. The aim in this study was to investigate whether the favourable clinical outcome with the FFR-guided PCI in the FAME study persisted over a 5-year follow-up. The FAME study was a multicentre trial done in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI or FFR-guided PCI. Before randomisation, stenoses requiring PCI were identified on the angiogram. Patients allocated to angiography-guided PCI had revascularisation of all identified stenoses. Patients allocated to FFR-guided PCI had FFR measurements of all stenotic arteries and PCI was done only if FFR was 0·80 or less. No one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events at 1 year, and the data for the 5-year follow-up are reported here. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00267774. After 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 31% of patients (154 of 496) in the angiography-guided group versus 28% (143 of 509 patients) in the FFR-guided group (relative risk 0·91, 95% CI 0·75-1·10; p=0·31). The number of stents placed per patient was significantly higher in the angiography-guided group than in the FFR-guided group (mean 2·7 [SD 1·2] vs 1·9 [1·3], p<0·0001). The results confirm the long-term safety of FFR-guided PCI in patients with multivessel disease. A strategy of FFR-guided PCI resulted in a significant decrease of major adverse cardiac events for up to 2 years after the index procedure. From 2 years to 5 years, the risks for both groups developed similarly. This clinical outcome in the FFR-guided group was achieved with a lower number of stented arteries and less resource use. These results indicate that FFR guidance of multivessel PCI should be the standard of care in most patients. St Jude Medical, Friends of the Heart Foundation, and Medtronic.

Letter by Fan and He Regarding Article, “Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Disease and Abnormal Fractional Flow Reserve”

We take great interest in the article by Fearon et al1 with regard to the economic and quality of life implications of percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with stable angina. The study assessed patient utility with the use of the EQ-5D health survey in the Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2 (FAME 2) trial and found that percutaneous coronary intervention of coronary lesions with abnormal fractional flow reserve was more economically attractive than best medical therapy. However, we have some concerns with the statistical analysis. Cost–utility analysis is a common comparative effectiveness methodology in current health economics research, and quality-adjusted life-year …

Fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention is not a valid concept.

The concept of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has gained worldwide acceptance in the cardiology community.1 Hemodynamic assessment with FFR in the cardiac catheterization laboratory is now routinely being performed in intermediate-range coronary arterial stenoses to inform the decision to proceed with PCI.2 The paradigm of the FFR concept holds that clinical benefit of PCI is confined to coronary artery stenoses that restrict blood flow as documented by an abnormal FFR value (<0.75 or 0.80 typically).1 Correct measurement of FFR requires advancing a small wire distal to the stenosis that compares the intracoronary pressure with a proximal reference site under hyperemic conditions, for example, after application of adenosine.3,4 The procedure is invasive and adds cost, procedural time, radiation, contrast, and risk of vascular injury to standard angiography.5,6 To overcome the limitation of an invasive procedure, enormous efforts are being undertaken to assess FFR noninvasively.7 Several clinical studies reported modest to good accuracy of obtaining FFR estimates by computed tomography imaging, whereas other efforts have aimed at combining coronary anatomic information with myocardial perfusion information to simulate the same, seemingly desirable, outcome.8,9 Given the widespread use and large impact on the practice of cardiology, it appears prudent to critically review the evidence for the concept of FFR-guided revascularization. Response by Fearon p 1878 The FFR concept as outlined in the Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study is based on the premise that performing PCI on coronary arterial stenoses causing myocardial ischemia leads to reduced adverse cardiac events, while it is not beneficial to revascularize lesions that do not cause ischemia.10 This premise, however, does not adequately consider the complicated relationship among coronary artherosclerotic disease, coronary arterial blood flow, myocardial ischemia, …