CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial 中国肺高血压诊断和治疗指南2018 Circulating MicroRNAs and Monocyte-Platelet Aggregate Formation in Acute Coronary Syndrome Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial Effect of Pre-Hospital Crushed Prasugrel Tablets in Patients with STEMI Planned for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Randomized COMPARE CRUSH Trial Prognostic and Practical Validation of Current Definitions of Myocardial Infarction Associated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Deficiency of GATA3-Positive Macrophages Improves Cardiac Function Following Myocardial Infarction or Pressure Overload Hypertrophy Association between Coronary Collaterals and Myocardial Viability in Patients with a Chronic Total Occlusion Incidence and Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Galectin-3 Levels and Outcomes After Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Study

Original Research2018 Aug 13;11(15):1423-1433.

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

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

Lee JM, Choi KH, Koo BK 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.


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


METHODSA 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.


RESULTSThe 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).


CONCLUSIONSPatients 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).


Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.