FRACTIONAL FLOW RESERVE–GUIDED PCI IN PATIENTS WITH MULTI-VESSEL CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.787Keywords:
Fractional Flow Reserve, Percutaneous coronary intervention, multi-vessel coronary artery diseaseAbstract
In multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD), there is insufficient data to support the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide treatment beyond candidates for coronary graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the treatment based on FFR is more effective in lowering the ‘cumulative rate of death’, ‘myocardial infarction’, ‘stroke, or unexpected coronary revascularization in patients who have multi-vessel CAD than a ‘traditional strategy based on coronary angiography without FFR’. Methodology: A retrospective cross-sectional study involving 1200 participants, i-e, 607 in the control group and 593 in the FFR group. This study was conducted at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD) from June 2021 to July 2022. Multi-vessel CAD candidates were randomised (1 to 1) to either a conventional treatment plan without FFR or an intervention plan ‘based on FFR in all stenotic (≥50%) coronary arteries. ‘Revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or surgery)’ was recommended for FFR ≤0.80 lesions in the FFR group. A significant ‘adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event at one year served as the primary outcome. Results: After a safety investigation and the enrollment of 1200 patients, the data safety and monitoring board decided to terminate the trial early. The results showed no appreciable variations in the frequencies of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events among the FFR and control groups at the one-year monitoring, according to intention to treat. A 24-month extended follow-up confirmed no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the FFR group and the control group. More individuals were referred solely for medical care when FFR dramatically decreased the percentage of revascularised individuals. Conclusion: An FFR-guided approach reduced revascularisation rates compared to angiography only and almost doubled the rate of OMT alone among individuals with multi-vessel coronary artery disease. However, the FFR-guided approach had no discernible impact on the clinical results at one year, determined mainly by the SYNTAX score and left ventricular function. The current study indicates that while FFR alone does not affect clinical results, it does assist in selecting the best revascularisation approach.
Downloads
References
Gould KL, Johnson NP, Bateman TM, et al. Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decisionmaking. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1639–1653.
Patel MR, Calhoon JH, Dehmer GJ, et al. ACC/ AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2212–2241.
Nam C-W, Mangiacapra F, Entjes R, et al. Functional SYNTAX score for risk assessment in multivessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1211–1218.
Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes: the Task Force for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2020;41:407–477.
Pijls NH, van Son JA, Kirkeeide RL, De Bruyne B, Gould KL. Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing functional stenosis severity before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1993;87:1354–1367.
Bech GJ, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation. 2001;103:2928–2934.
Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–224.
Layland J, Oldroyd KG, Curzen N, et al. Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-STsegment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:100–111.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.
Sianos G, Morel M-A, Kappetein AP, et al. The SYNTAX score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention. 2005;1:219–227.
Serruys PW, Morice M-C, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961–972.
Carter RE, McKie PM, Storlie CB. The Fragility Index: a P-value in sheep’s clothing? Eur Heart J. 2017;38:346–348.
Curzen N, Rana O, Nicholas Z, et al. Does routine pressure wire assessment influence management strategy at coronary angiography for diagnosis of chest pain: The RIPCORD study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:248–255.
Baptista SB, Raposo L, Santos L, et al. Impact of routine fractional flow reserve evaluation during coronary angiography on management strategy and clinical outcome: one-year results of the POST-IT. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e004296.
Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi H-M, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391:31–40.
Engstrøm T, Kelbæk H, Helqvist S, et al. Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386: 665–671.
Smits PC, Abdel-Wahab M, Neumann F-J, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided multivessel angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1234–1244.
Puymirat E, Cayla G, Simon T, et al. Multivessel PCI guided by FFR or angiography for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2021;385: 297–308.
Thuesen AL, Riber LP, Veien KT, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiographically-guided coronary artery bypass grafting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:2732–2743.
Glineur D, Grau JB, Etienne P-Y, et al. Impact of preoperative fractional flow reserve on arterial bypass graft anastomotic function: the IMPAG trial. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:2421–2428.
Pijls NHJ, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the defer study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:2105–2111.
Van Belle E, Rioufol G, Pouillot C, et al. Outcome impact of coronary revascularization strategy reclassification with fractional flow reserve at time of diagnostic angiography: insights from a large French multicenter fractional flow reserve registry. Circulation. 2014;129:173– 185.
Petrie MC, Jhund PS, She L, et al. Ten-year outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting according to age in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction: an analysis of the extended follow-up of the STICH trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure). Circulation. 2016;134:1314–1324.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 A BASIT , . YUSRA, AQ MEMON , Z ULLAH , M IRSHAD , MA ILYAS , M ABDULLAH
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
