Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Research Articles

Impact of a Chronic Total Occlusion on Outcomes After FFR-Guided PCI or Coronary Bypass Surgery: A FAME 3 Substudy.

The clinical impact of a chronic total occlusion (CTO) in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease undergoing fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with current-generation drug-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unclear. The FAME 3 trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 3) compared fractional flow reserve-guided PCI with CABG in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1 year. In this substudy, the 3-year outcomes were analyzed in patients with or without a CTO. Of the patients randomized to PCI or CABG in the FAME 3 trial, 305 (21%) had a CTO. In the PCI arm, revascularization of the CTO was attempted in 61% with a procedural success rate of 88%. The incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 3 years was not significantly different between those with or without a CTO in both the PCI (15.2% versus 20.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.38-1.03]; P=0.07) and the CABG (13.0% versus 12.9%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.55-1.66]; P=0.88) arms. In those without a CTO, PCI was associated with a significantly higher risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events compared with CABG (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.20-2.17]; P<0.01) but not in those with a CTO (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.64-2.28]; P=0.56; Pinteraction=0.31). The presence of a CTO did not significantly impact the treatment effect of PCI versus CABG at 3 years in patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02100722.

TCT-657 A Randomised Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve Versus the Instantaneous Wave Free Ratio to Guide Management of Serially Diseased Coronary Arteries

TCT-657 A Randomised Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve Versus the Instantaneous Wave Free Ratio to Guide Management of Serially Diseased Coronary Arteries

Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Usual Care Strategy to Guide the Management of Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Usual Care Strategy to Guide the Management of Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-guided Revascularisation in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-guided Revascularisation in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Clinical Value of Single-Projection Angiography-Derived FFR in Noninfarct-Related Artery.

The Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μFR) is an emerging technique that requires only 1 projection of coronary angiography with similar accuracy to quantitative flow ratio (QFR). However, it has not been validated for the evaluation of noninfarct-related artery (non-IRA) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) settings. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of μFR and the safety of deferring non-IRA lesions with μFR >0.80 in the setting of AMI. μFR and QFR were analyzed for non-IRA lesions of patients with AMI enrolled in the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infarction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction), consisting of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention groups. The diagnostic accuracy of μFR was compared with QFR and FFR. Patients were classified by the non-IRA μFR value of 0.80 as a cutoff value. The primary outcome was a vessel-oriented composite outcome, a composite of cardiac death, non-IRA-related myocardial infarction, and non-IRA-related repeat revascularization. μFR and QFR analyses were feasible in 443 patients (552 lesions). μFR showed acceptable correlation with FFR (R=0.777; P<0.001), comparable C-index with QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80 (μFR versus QFR: 0.926 versus 0.961, P=0.070), and shorter total analysis time (mean, 32.7 versus 186.9 s; P<0.001). Non-IRA with μFR >0.80 and deferred percutaneous coronary intervention had a significantly lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than non-IRA with performed percutaneous coronary intervention (3.4% versus 10.5%; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.14-0.99]; P=0.048). In patients with multivessel AMI, μFR of non-IRA showed acceptable diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80. Deferred non-IRA with μFR >0.80 showed a lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than revascularized non-IRA. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.

C-8 | Outcomes of Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Intravascular Ultrasound During Percutaneous Intervention: A Meta-Analysis

C-8 | Outcomes of Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Intravascular Ultrasound During Percutaneous Intervention: A Meta-Analysis

Angiographic Severity of the Nonculprit Lesion and the Efficacy of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Complete Revascularization in Patients With AMI: FRAME-AMI Substudy.

The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for noninfarct-related artery (IRA) lesions with angiographically severe stenosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction is unclear. Among 562 patients from the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infraction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) who were randomly allocated into either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions, the current study evaluated the relationship between non-IRA stenosis measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and the efficacy of FFR-guided PCI. The incidence of the primary end point (death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) was compared between FFR- and angiography-guided PCI according to non-IRA stenosis severity (QCA stenosis ≥70% or <70%). A total of 562 patients were assigned to FFR-guided (n=284) versus angiography-guided PCI (n=278). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary end point occurred in 14 of 181 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 31 of 197 patients with angiography-guided PCI among patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (8.5% versus 19.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.22-0.80]; P=0.008), while occurred in 4 of 103 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 9 of 81 patients with angiography-guided PCI among those with QCA stenosis <70% (3.9% versus 11.1%; P=0.315). There was no significant interaction between treatment strategy and non-IRA stenosis severity (P for interaction=0.636). FFR-guided PCI was associated with the reduction of death and myocardial infarction in both patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (6.7% versus 15.1%; P=0.008) and those with QCA stenosis <70% (1.0% versus 9.6%; P=0.042) compared with angiography-guided PCI. In patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, FFR-guided PCI tended to have a lower risk of primary end point than angiography-guided PCI regardless of non-IRA stenosis severity without significant interaction. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.

TCT-190 The Impact of Age on Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A FLAVOUR Trial Substudy

TCT-190 The Impact of Age on Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A FLAVOUR Trial Substudy

TCT-722 Diagnostic Performance of Nonhyperemic Pressure Ratios Versus Fractional Flow Reserve Stratified by Coronary Artery

TCT-722 Diagnostic Performance of Nonhyperemic Pressure Ratios Versus Fractional Flow Reserve Stratified by Coronary Artery

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.

HTA131 An Early Health Technology Assessment of Non-Invasive Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Standard Diagnostics in Patients With Stable Chest Pain in the Netherlands

The introduction of fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography (FFRct) could provide a non-invasive alternative to current diagnostics in patients with stable chest pain in The Netherlands. The aim of this study was to assess the healthcare costs and effects of Hemolens’ FFRct guided diagnostics compared to standard diagnostics.

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.

Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Assessment of Lesion Hemodynamic Significance and Explanation of their Discrepancies. International, Multicenter and Prospective Trial: The FiGARO Study.

BackgroundThe FiGARO (FFR versus iFR in Assessment of Hemodynamic Lesion Significance, and an Explanation of Their Discrepancies) trial is a prospective registry searching for predictors of fractional flow reserve/instantaneous wave‐free ratio (FFR/iFR) discrepancy.Methods and ResultsFFR/iFR were analyzed using a Verrata wire, and coronary flow reserve was analyzed using a Combomap machine (both Philips‐Volcano). The risk polymorphisms for endothelial nitric oxide synthase and for heme oxygenase‐1 were analyzed. In total, 1884 FFR/iFR measurements from 1564 patients were included. The FFR/iFR discrepancy occurred in 393 measurements (20.9%): FFRp (positive)/iFRn (negative) type (264 lesions, 14.0%) and FFRn/iFRp (129 lesions, 6.8%) type. Coronary flow reserve was measured in 343 lesions, correlating better with iFR (R=0.56, P<0.0001) than FFR (R=0.36, P<0.0001). The coronary flow reserve value in FFRp/iFRn lesions (2.24±0.7) was significantly higher compared with both FFRp/iFRp (1.39±0.36), and FFRn/iFRn lesions (1.8±0.64, P<0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis confirmed (1) sex, age, and lesion location in the right coronary artery as predictors for FFRp/iFRn discrepancy; and (2) hemoglobin level, smoking, and renal insufficiency as predictors for FFRn/iFRp discrepancy. The FFRn/iFRp type of discrepancy was significantly more frequent in patients with both risk types of polymorphisms (endothelial nitric oxide synthaser+heme oxygenase‐1r): 8 patients (24.2%) compared with FFRp/iFRn type of discrepancy: 2 patients (5.9%), P=0.03.ConclusionsPredictors for FFRp/iFRn discrepancy were sex, age, and location in the right coronary artery. Predictors for FFRn/iFRp were hemoglobin level, smoking, and renal insufficiency. The risk type of polymorphism in endothelial nitric oxide synthase and heme oxygenase‐1 genes was more frequently found in patients with FFRn/iFRp type of discrepancy.RegistrationURL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03033810.

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.

5-Year Outcomes of PCI Guided by Measurement of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve

BackgroundInstantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a coronary physiology index used to assess the severity of coronary artery stenosis to guide revascularization. iFR has previously demonstrated noninferior short-term outcome compared to fractional flow reserve (FFR), but data on longer-term outcome have been lacking. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate the prespecified 5-year follow-up of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization of the iFR-SWEDEHEART trial comparing iFR vs FFR in patients with chronic and acute coronary syndromes. MethodsiFR-SWEDEHEART was a multicenter, controlled, open-label, registry-based randomized clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2,037 patients were randomized to undergo revascularization guided by iFR or FFR. ResultsNo patients were lost to follow-up. At 5 years, the rate of the primary composite endpoint was 21.5% in the iFR group and 19.9% in the FFR group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.90-1.33). The rates of all-cause death (9.4% vs 7.9%; HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.89-1.62), nonfatal myocardial infarction (5.7% vs 5.8%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.70-1.44), and unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs 11.3%; HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.79-1.32) were also not different between the 2 groups. The outcomes were consistent across prespecified subgroups. ConclusionsIn patients with chronic or acute coronary syndromes, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was associated with no difference in the 5-year composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization compared with an FFR-guided revascularization strategy. (Evaluation of iFR vs FFR in Stable Angina or Acute Coronary Syndrome [iFR SWEDEHEART]; NCT02166736)

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.