CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Quantitative angiography methods for bifurcation lesions: a consensus statement update from the European Bifurcation Club Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic From Nonclinical Research to Clinical Trials and Patient-registries: Challenges and Opportunities in Biomedical Research China PEACE risk estimation tool for in-hospital death from acute myocardial infarction: an early risk classification tree for decisions about fibrinolytic therapy High-Risk Coronary Atherosclerosis: Is It the Plaque Burden, the Calcium, the Lipid, or Something Else? IVUS Guidance Is Associated With Better Outcome in Patients Undergoing Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting Compared With Angiography Guidance Alone How Will the Transition to hs-cTn Affect the Diagnosis of Type 1 and 2 MI? Prognostic Effect and Longitudinal Hemodynamic Assessment of Borderline Pulmonary Hypertension Comparative analysis of recurrent events after presentation with an index myocardial infarction or ischaemic stroke Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated Medically or with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights from the AUGUSTUS Trial

Clinical TrialAugust 2017, Volume 10, Issue 8

JOURNAL:Circ Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Prognostic Value of Fractional Flow Reserve Measured Immediately After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation

Piroth Z, Toth GG, De Bruyne B et al. Keywords: acute coronary syndromedrug-eluting stenthospitalizationmyocardial infarctionpercutaneous coronary intervention

ABSTRACT


Background The predictive value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) measured immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent placement has not been prospectively investigated. We investigated the potential of post-PCI FFR measurements to predict clinical outcome in patients from FAME 1 and 2 trials (Fractional Flow Reserve or Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation).


Methods and Results All patients of FAME 1 and FAME 2 who had post-PCI FFR measurement were included. The primary outcome was vessel-oriented composite end point at 2 years, defined as vessel-related cardiovascular death, vessel-related spontaneous myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization. Eight hundred thirty-eight vessels in 639 patients were analyzed. Baseline FFR values did not differ between vessels with versus without vessel-oriented composite end point (0.66±0.11 versus 0.63±0.14, respectively; P=0.207). Post-PCI FFR was significantly lower in vessels with vessel-oriented composite end point (0.88±0.06 versus 0.90±0.06, respectively; P=0.019). Comparing the 2-year outcome of lower and upper tertiles of post-PCI FFR significant difference was found favoring upper tertile in terms of overall vessel-oriented composite end point (9.2% versus 3.8%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.02–2.08; P=0.037) and target vessel revascularization (7.0% versus 2.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.03–2.46; P=0.037). When adjusted to sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, target vessel, serial stenosis, and baseline percentage diameter stenosis, a strong trend was preserved in terms of target vessel revascularization (harzard ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.97–2.46; P=0.066), favoring the upper tertile. Post-PCI FFR of 0.92 was found to have the highest diagnostic accuracy; however, the positive likelihood ratio remained low (<1.4).

Conclusions A higher post-PCI FFR value is associated with a better vessel-related outcome. However, its predictive value is too low to advocate its use as a surrogate clinical end point.