| 1. |
- Cerrato, Enrico, et al.
(författare)
-
Revascularization Deferral of Nonculprit Stenoses on the Basis of Fractional Flow Reserve : 1-Year Outcomes of 8,579 Patients
- 2020
-
Ingår i: JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. - : Elsevier BV. - 1936-8798. ; 13:16, s. 1894-1903
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Intracoronary physiology is increasingly used in nonculprit stenoses of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, evidence regarding the safety of fractional flow reserve-based deferral in patients with ACS, compared with patients with stable angina pectoris (SAP), is scarce. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of revascularization deferral on the basis of fractional flow reserve interrogation of nonculprit lesions in patients with ACS. Methods: A pooled analysis was performed of individual patient data included in 5 large international published studies on physiology-guided revascularization. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization) at 1-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes of patients with ACS and SAP were compared in both the deferred and the revascularized groups. Results: A total of 8,579 patients were included in the analysis, 6,461 with SAP and 2,118 with ACS and nonculprit stenoses. Using fractional flow reserve, revascularization was deferred in 5,129 patients (59.8%) and performed in 3,450 patients (40.2%). In the deferred ACS group, a higher MACE rate was observed compared with the deferred SAP group (4.46% vs. 2.83%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17 to 2.53; p < 0.01). In particular, early unplanned revascularization (3.34% and 2.04% in ACS and SAP; adjusted HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.09 to 3.00; p = 0.02) contributed to this excess in MACE but the difference between the ACS and SAP groups did not reach statistical significance. On the contrary, no differences in outcomes linked to clinical presentation were found in treated patients (MACE rate 6.51% vs. 6.20%; adjusted HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.26; p = 0.24). Conclusions: Patients with ACS in whom revascularization of nonculprit lesions was deferred on the basis of fractional flow reserve have more MACE at 1 year compared with patients with SAP with deferred revascularization. Unplanned revascularization mainly contributed to this excess of MACE.
|
|
| 2. |
- Escaned, Javier, et al.
(författare)
-
Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes
- 2018
-
Ingår i: JACC. - : Elsevier. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 11:15, s. 1437-1449
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
