CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Safety of six-month dual antiplatelet therapy after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation: OPTIMA-C Randomised Clinical Trial and OCT Substudy Cardiovascular biomarkers in patients with acute decompensated heart failure randomized to sacubitril-valsartan or enalapril in the PIONEER-HF trial Second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation followed by 6- versus 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy: the SECURITY randomized clinical trial Titration of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Intravascular ultrasound predictors for edge restenosis after newer generation drug-eluting stent implantation Cost-Effectiveness of Different Durations of Dual-Antiplatelet Use After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Pathophysiology: Why Women Are Overrepresented in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Phenotypic Refinement of Heart Failure in a National Biobank Facilitates Genetic Discovery SPECT and PET in ischemic heart failure Intravascular ultrasound-guided vs angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in complex coronary lesions: Meta-analysis of randomized trials

Original ResearchVolume 11, Issue 15, August 2018

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Prognostic Implication of Thermodilution Coronary Flow Reserve in Patients Undergoing Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement

JM Lee, KH Choi, D Hwang et al. Keywords: coronary artery disease; coronary flow reserve; fractional flow reserve; myocardial ischemia; percutaneous coronary intervention; prognosis

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - This study investigated the prognostic implication of coronary flow reserve (CFR) in patients who underwent fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement.


BACKGROUND - Limited data are available regarding the long-term prognosis associated with thermodilution CFR in patients with coronary artery disease.

METHODS - A total of 519 patients (737 vessels) who did not undergo revascularization were classified according to FFR and CFR values. Low FFR and low CFR were defined with upper thresholds of 0.8 and 2.0, respectively. FFR and CFR were measured by a pressure-temperature sensor–tipped wire. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the vessel-oriented composite outcome (VOCO) (a composite of cardiac death, vessel-specific myocardial infarction, and vessel-specific revascularization) during 5 years of follow-up.

RESULTS - The categorical agreement (kappa = 0.080; p = 0.024) between FFR and CFR were modest, and 30.6% of the population showed discordant results between FFR and CFR. During 5 years of follow-up, patients with low CFR had a significantly higher risk of VOCO than did those with high CFR (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.171; 95% CI: 1.664 to 6.042; p < 0.001). Among patients with high FFR, there were no differences in clinical risk factor profiles, FFR, or stenosis severity between the high-CFR and low-CFR groups, and low CFR was an independent predictor for VOCO (HR: 4.999; 95% CI: 2.104 to 11.879; p < 0.001). In a 4-group classification according to both FFR and CFR, patients with low FFR and low CFR had the highest risk of VOCO (17.9%; overall p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS - Patients with low CFR had a significantly higher risk of clinical events during 5 years of follow-up. Low CFR was an independent predictor for patient-oriented composite outcome among patients with high FFR. These results support the value of CFR in patients who undergo FFR measurement. (Clinical, Physical and Prognostic Implication of Microvascular Status; NCT02186093)