CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Clinical Relevance of Functionally Insignificant Moderate Coronary Artery Stenosis Assessed by 3-Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement Coronary Computed Tomography–Based Fractional Flow Reserve A Rapidly Developing Field Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease High-Resolution Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Techniques for the Identification of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided treatment in patients with angiographically equivocal left main coronary artery stenosis Impact of myocardial supply area on the transstenotic hemodynamics as determined by fractional flow reserve Diagnostic Performance of the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio: Comparison With Fractional Flow Reserve Influence of Heart Rate on FFR Measurements: An Experimental and Clinical Validation Study

Clinical Trial2018 Mar 14;39(11):945-951.

JOURNAL:Eur Heart J. Article Link

Clinical implications of three-vessel fractional flow reserve measurement in patients with coronary artery disease

Lee JM, Koo BK, Shin ES et al. Keywords: three-vessel fractional flow reserve measurement; coronary artery disease

ABSTRACT


AIMSThere are limited data on the clinical implications of total physiologic atherosclerotic burden assessed by invasive physiologic studies in patients with coronary artery disease. We investigated the prognostic implications of total physiologic atherosclerotic burden assessed by total sum of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in three vessels (3V-FFR).


METHODS AND RESULTS - A total of 1136 patients underwent FFR measurement in three vessels (3V FFR-FRIENDS study, NCT01621438). The patients were classified into high and low 3V-FFR groups according to the median value of 3V-FFR (2.72). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and ischaemia-driven revascularization) at 2 years. Mean angiographic percent diameter stenosis and FFR were 43.7 ± 19.3% and 0.90 ± 0.08, respectively. There was a negative correlation between 3V-FFR and estimated 2-year MACE rate (P < 0.001). The patients in low 3V-FFR group showed a higher risk of 2-year MACE than those in the high 3V-FFR group [(7.1% vs. 3.8%, hazard ratio (HR) 2.205, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.201-4.048, P = 0.011]. The higher 2-year MACE rate was mainly driven by the higher rate of ischaemia-driven revascularization in the low 3V-FFR group (6.2% vs. 2.7%, HR 2.568, 95% CI 1.283-5.140, P = 0.008). In a multivariable adjusted model, low 3V-FFR was an independent predictor of MACE (HR 2.031, 95% CI 1.078-3.830, P = 0.029).

CONCLUSION - Patients with high total physiologic atherosclerotic burden assessed by 3V-FFR showed higher risk of 2-year clinical events than those with low total physiologic atherosclerotic burden. The difference was mainly driven by ischaemia-driven revascularization for both functionally significant and insignificant lesions at baseline. Three-vessel FFR might be used as a prognostic indicator in patients with coronary artery disease.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION - 3V FFR-FRIENDS study (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01621438, NCT01621438).