CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

Stenting Left Main

科研文章

荐读文献

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: comparison with bare metal stent implantation Second vs. First generation drug eluting stents in multiple vessel disease and left main stenosis: Two-year follow-up of the observational, prospective, controlled, and multicenter ERACI IV registry Percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery disease: the 13th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club Percutaneous coronary intervention for the left main stem and other bifurcation lesions: 12th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club Bayesian Interpretation of the EXCEL Trial and Other Randomized Clinical Trials of Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization Left-main restenosis in the DES era-a call for action Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial Left Main Revascularization in 2017 Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Differences between the left main and other bifurcations

Original ResearchVolume 11, Issue 15, August 2018

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

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

JM Lee, KH Choi, D Hwang 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.


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

METHODS - A 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.

RESULTS - The 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).

CONCLUSIONS - Patients 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)