CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography coronary angiography in the assessment and management of stable chest pain: the FORECAST randomized trial 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 Clinical implications of three-vessel fractional flow reserve measurement in patients with coronary artery disease Lesion-Specific and Vessel-Related Determinants of Fractional Flow Reserve Beyond Coronary Artery Stenosis Relationship between fractional flow reserve value and the amount of subtended myocardium Fractional flow reserve in clinical practice: from wire-based invasive measurement to image-based computation Experience With an On-Site Coronary Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Algorithm for the Assessment of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses Post-stenting fractional flow reserve vs coronary angiography for optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention: TARGET-FFR trial

Clinical Trial2018;May 22:[Epub ahead of print]

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Five-Year Outcomes with PCI Guided by Fractional Flow Reserve

Xaplanteris P, Fournier S, FAME 2 Trial Investigators et al. Keywords: fractional flow reserve; PCI; medical therapy; outcome

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - We hypothesized that fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) would be superior to medical therapy as initial treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease.


METHODS - Among 1220 patients with angiographically significant stenoses, those in whom at least one stenosis was hemodynamically significant (FFR, ≤0.80) were randomly assigned to FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy or to medical therapy alone. Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 received medical therapy and were entered into a registry. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization.

RESULTS - A total of 888 patients underwent randomization (447 patients in the PCI group and 441 in the medical-therapy group). At 5 years, the rate of the primary end point was lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (13.9% vs. 27.0%; hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.63; P<0.001). The difference was driven by urgent revascularizations, which occurred in 6.3% of the patients in the PCI group as compared with 21.1% of those in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.41). There were no significant differences between the PCI group and the medical-therapy group in the rates of death (5.1% and 5.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.75) or myocardial infarction (8.1% and 12.0%; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.00). There was no significant difference in the rate of the primary end point between the PCI group and the registry cohort (13.9% and 15.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.39). Relief from angina was more pronounced after PCI than after medical therapy.

CONCLUSIONS - In patients with stable coronary artery disease, an initial FFR-guided PCI strategy was associated with a significantly lower rate of the primary composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization at 5 years than medical therapy alone. Patients without hemodynamically significant stenoses had a favorable long-term outcome with medical therapy alone. (Funded by St. Jude Medical and others; FAME 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01132495.)