CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation Combined Assessment of Stress Myocardial Perfusion Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance and Flow Measurement in the Coronary Sinus Improves Prediction of Functionally Significant Coronary Stenosis Determined by Fractional Flow Reserve in Multivessel Disease Coronary Microcirculation Downstream Non-Infarct-Related Arteries in the Subacute Phase of Myocardial Infarction: Implications for Physiology-Guided Revascularization Coronary Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment-A Gatekeeper in Intermediate Stenoses Clinical Relevance of Functionally Insignificant Moderate Coronary Artery Stenosis Assessed by 3-Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI for Stable Coronary Artery Disease Robustness of Fractional Flow Reserve for Lesion Assessment in Non-Infarct-Related Arteries of Patients With Myocardial Infarction Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease

Clinical Trial2018 Feb 15;7(4). pii: e008055.

JOURNAL:J Am Heart Assoc. Article Link

Clinical Relevance of Functionally Insignificant Moderate Coronary Artery Stenosis Assessed by 3-Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement

Park J, Lee JM, Koo BK et al. Keywords: coronary artery disease; fractional flow reserve; multivessel coronary artery disease; physiology/function; prognosis

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUNDUnderstanding of the risk conferred by functionally insignificant lesions in multiple coronary vessels is limited. We investigated the prognostic implications of coronary artery disease (CAD) based on 3-vessel fractional flow reserve (FFR).


METHODS AND RESULTSA total of 1,136 patients underwent FFR measurement in the 3 major epicardial arteries. We defined vessels with "Moderate CAD" as vessels with FFR, 0.81 to 0.87. Patients were classified into Group 1: No apparent CAD (FFR>0.87 in all 3-vessels); Group 2: Single-vessel moderate CAD; Group 3: Multivessel moderate CAD; and Group 4: Functionally significant CAD (FFR≤0.80) in any vessel. The primary end point was 2-year major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization. Forty-three percent of patients had moderate CAD (Group 2: 403/1136, 35.5%; Group 3: 84/1136, 7.4%). The 2-year risk of major adverse cardiac events was not significantly different between patients with single-vessel moderate CAD and no apparent CAD (2.6 versus 2.6%; HR, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.4%-2.8%; P=0.89). However, patients with multivessel moderate CAD were at significantly higher risk than Group 1 (7.4 versus 2.6%; hazard ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-9.8%; P=0.03). The risk of major adverse cardiac events in patients with multivessel moderate CAD was comparable to that of patients with functionally significant CAD (hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.5%-3.0%; P=0.67). In a multivariable regression model, multivessel moderate CAD was an independent predictor of greater risk of 2-year major adverse cardiac events.

CONCLUSIONSGlobal physiologic assessment with FFR measurement of 3 vessels can identify multivessel moderate CAD. The prognostic implication of multivessel moderate CAD appears comparable to that of functionally significant CAD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATIONURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01621438.

© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.