CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Coronary Microcirculation Downstream Non-Infarct-Related Arteries in the Subacute Phase of Myocardial Infarction: Implications for Physiology-Guided Revascularization Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation Robustness of Fractional Flow Reserve for Lesion Assessment in Non-Infarct-Related Arteries of Patients With Myocardial Infarction Clinical Implication of Quantitative Flow Ratio After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for 3-Vessel Disease Coronary Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment-A Gatekeeper in Intermediate Stenoses Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve : A Systematic Review 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

Original ResearchVolume 13, Issue 8, April 2020

JOURNAL:JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions Article Link

The Natural History of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI: An FFR Substudy of the Compare-Acute Trial

Z Piróth, BM B-de Klerk, E Omerovic et al. Keywords: FFR;nonculprit lesions; STEMI

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in non-infarct-related arteries (IRAs) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI).

 

BACKGROUND - Patients with ST-segment elevation MI often present with multivessel disease. The treatment of non-IRAs is debated. The applicability of FFR has not been widely proved.

 

METHODS - Outcomes were analyzed in all patients in the Compare-Acute (Comparison Between FFR Guided Revascularization Versus Conventional Strategy in Acute STEMI Patients With MVD) trial in whom, after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention, non-IRAs were interrogated using FFR and treated medically. The treating cardiologist was blinded to the FFR value. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular mortality, target vesselrelated (non-IRA with FFR measurement at primary percutaneous coronary intervention) nonfatal MI, and target vessel revascularization: major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 24 months.

 

RESULTS -  A total of 751 patients (963 vessels) were included. Target non-IRAs with MACE had lower FFR compared with those without (0.78 vs. 0.84, respectively; p < 0.001). The median FFR of non-IRAs with TVR was lower than that of those without (0.79 vs. 0.85, respectively; p < 0.001). The difference was significant in all vessels. The median FFR of target non-IRAs with MI was lower than that of those without (0.79 vs. 0.84, respectively; p = 0.016). The MACE rate was significantly (p < 0.001) higher in the lowest of FFR tertiles (<0.80) compared with the others (0.80 to 0.87 and 0.88).

 

CONCLUSIONS - In patients with ST-segment elevation MI with multivessel disease, FFR measured in the medically treated non-IRA immediately after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention shows a nonlinear and inverse risk continuum of MACE. Importantly, worsening prognosis is demonstrated around the cutoff of 0.80.