Dataset Information

Non-randomized comparison between revascularization and deferral for intermediate coronary stenosis with abnormal fractional flow reserve and preserved coronary flow reserve.

ABSTRACT: Limited data are available regarding comparative prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus deferral of revascularization in patients with intermediate stenosis with abnormal fractional flow reserve (FFR) but preserved coronary flow reserve (CFR). From the International Collaboration of Comprehensive Physiologic Assessment Registry (NCT03690713), a total of 330 patients (338 vessels) who had coronary stenosis with FFR ≤ 0.80 but CFR > 2.0 were selected for the current analysis. Patient-level clinical outcome was assessed by major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 5 years, a composite of all-cause death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or target-vessel revascularization. Among the study population, 231 patients (233 vessels) underwent PCI and 99 patients (105 vessels) were deferred. During 5 years of follow-up, cumulative incidence of MACE was 13.0% (31 patients) without significant difference between PCI and deferred groups (12.7% vs. 14.0%, adjusted HR 1.301, 95% CI 0.611-2.769, P = 0.495). Multiple sensitivity analyses by propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting also showed no significant difference in patient-level MACE and vessel-specific MI or revascularization. In this hypothesis-generating study, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between PCI and deferred groups among patients with intermediate stenosis with FFR ≤ 0.80 but CFR > 2.0. Further study is needed to confirm this finding.Clinical Trial Registration: International Collaboration of Comprehensive Physiologic Assessment Registry (NCT03690713; registration date: 10/01/2018).

SUBMITTER: Shin D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8080642 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Non-randomized comparison between revascularization and deferral for intermediate coronary stenosis with abnormal fractional flow reserve and preserved coronary flow reserve.

Shin Doosup D Lee Joo Myung JM Lee Seung Hun SH Hwang Doyeon D Choi Ki Hong KH Kim Hyun Kuk HK Doh Joon-Hyung JH Nam Chang-Wook CW Shin Eun-Seok ES Hoshino Masahiro M Murai Tadashi T Yonetsu Taishi T Mejía-Rentería Hernán H Kakuta Tsunekazu T Escaned Javier J Koo Bon-Kwon BK

Scientific reports 20210428 1

Limited data are available regarding comparative prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus deferral of revascularization in patients with intermediate stenosis with abnormal fractional flow reserve (FFR) but preserved coronary flow reserve (CFR). From the International Collaboration of Comprehensive Physiologic Assessment Registry (NCT03690713), a total of 330 patients (338 vessels) who had coronary stenosis with FFR ≤ 0.80 but CFR > 2.0 were selected for the current analys ...[more]

PMID: 33911143

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) may help both in assessment and in percutaneous coronary intervention optimization of angiographically intermediate coronary lesions. We designed a prospective trial comparing the clinical and economic outcomes associated with FFR or OCT in angiographically intermediate coronary lesions. Methods and Results Three hundred fifty patients with angiographically intermediate coronary lesions (n=446) were randomized to FFR or OCT guidance. In the FFR arm, percutaneous coronary intervention was performed if FFR was ≤0.80 aiming for a postprocedure FFR >0.90. In the OCT arm, percutaneous coronary intervention was performed if percentage of area stenosis was ≥75% or 50% to 75% with minimal lumen area <2.5 mm2 or plaque ulceration. Costs, angina frequency, and major adverse cardiac events were assessed at 1 month and at 13 months. We present early data at 1 month consistent with a prespecified analysis of secondary end points. Patients randomized to FFR, as compared with OCT, were significantly more commonly managed with medical therapy alone (67.7% versus 41.1%; P<0.001), required less contrast media (245±137 versus 280±129 mL; P=0.004), and exhibited a lower occurrence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (1.7% versus 8.6%; P=0.034). At 1 month, in comparison to FFR, OCT was associated with increased total costs (2831±1288 versus 4292±3844 euros/patient; P<0.001) whereas occurrence of major adverse cardiac events or significant angina was similar. Conclusions In patients with angiographically intermediate coronary lesions, a functional guidance by FFR, as compared with OCT, increased the rate of patients treated with medical therapy alone. This translated into a significant reduction in administered contrast, contrast-induced acute kidney injury, and total costs at 1 month with FFR. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrialsgov. Unique identifier: NCT01824030.

Dataset Information

Non-randomized comparison between revascularization and deferral for intermediate coronary stenosis with abnormal fractional flow reserve and preserved coronary flow reserve.

Publications

Non-randomized comparison between revascularization and deferral for intermediate coronary stenosis with abnormal fractional flow reserve and preserved coronary flow reserve.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets