CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease Coronary Computed Tomography–Based Fractional Flow Reserve A Rapidly Developing Field High-Resolution Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Techniques for the Identification of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Physiology-Based Revascularization: A New Approach to Plan and Optimize Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: State-of-the-Art Review Influence of Heart Rate on FFR Measurements: An Experimental and Clinical Validation Study Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided treatment in patients with angiographically equivocal left main coronary artery stenosis Diagnostic Performance of the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio: Comparison With Fractional Flow Reserve Impact of myocardial supply area on the transstenotic hemodynamics as determined by fractional flow reserve

Clinical Trial2014; 371:1208-1217

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI for Stable Coronary Artery Disease

De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, FAME 2 Trial Investigators et al. Keywords: fractional flow reserve; PCI; medical therapy; outcome

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUNDWe hypothesized that in patients with stable coronary artery disease and stenosis, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed on the basis of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) would be superior to medical therapy.


METHODS - In 1220 patients with stable coronary artery disease, we assessed the FFR in all stenoses that were visible on angiography. Patients who had at least one stenosis with an FFR of 0.80 or less were randomly assigned to undergo FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy or to receive medical therapy alone. Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 received medical therapy alone and were included in a registry. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization within 2 years.

RESULTS - The rate of the primary end point was significantly lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (8.1% vs. 19.5%; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.57; P<0.001). This reduction was driven by a lower rate of urgent revascularization in the PCI group (4.0% vs. 16.3%; hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.38; P<0.001), with no significant between-group differences in the rates of death and myocardial infarction. Urgent revascularizations that were triggered by myocardial infarction or ischemic changes on electrocardiography were less frequent in the PCI group (3.4% vs. 7.0%, P=0.01). In a landmark analysis, the rate of death or myocardial infarction from 8 days to 2 years was lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (4.6% vs. 8.0%, P=0.04). Among registry patients, the rate of the primary end point was 9.0% at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS - In patients with stable coronary artery disease, FFR-guided PCI, as compared with medical therapy alone, improved the outcome. Patients without ischemia had a favorable outcome with medical therapy alone. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; FAME 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01132495.)