Meta-analysis of deferral versus performance of coronary intervention based on coronary pressure-derived fractional flow reserve

Long-term Safety of Revascularization Deferral Based on Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve

Background

Deferral of coronary revascularization is safe whether guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or by fractional flow reserve (FFR). We aimed to assess long-term outcomes in patients deferred from revascularization based on iFR or FFR in a large real-world population.

Methods

From 2013 through 2017, 201,933 coronary angiographies were registered in the Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART). We included all patients (n = 11,324) with at least 1 coronary lesion deferred from PCI during an index procedure using iFR (>0.89; n = 1998) or FFR (>0.80; n = 9326). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. A multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model was used, with analysis for interaction of prespecified subgroups.

Results

Patients presented with stable angina pectoris (iFR 46.9% vs FFR 48.6%), unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (iFR 37.7% vs FFR 33.1%), ST-elevation myocardial infarction (iFR 1.9% vs FFR 1.6%), and other indications (iFR 12.5% vs FFR 15.7%). The median follow-up was 2 years for both iFR and FFR groups. At the conclusion of the study, the cumulative MACE risks were 26.7 for the iFR group and 25.9% for FFR group. In the adjusted analysis, no difference was found between the 2 groups (adjusted hazard ratio: iFR vs FFR, 0.947; 95% CI, 0.84-1.08; P = 39). Consistent with the overall findings, the prespecified subgroups showed no interaction with the FFR/iFR results.

Conclusions

Deferral of revascularization showed similar long-term safety whether based on iFR or on FFR.

Safety and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Fractional Flow Reserve Guided Coronary Revascularisation

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, fractional flow reserve (FFR) is employed to assess coronary artery stenoses although there is limited real world long-term outcome data with a recent report questioning its safety. This study aimed to assess the in-hospital complications and clinical outcomes up to 10 years after FFR-guided revascularisation at a tertiary Australian hospital.

METHODS

The cohort comprised 274 consecutive patients undergoing FFR from 2010 to 2015 with follow-up to 2020. In-hospital complications and long-term outcomes were compared between patients with FFR≤0.80 and FFR>0.80. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) comprised cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR).

RESULTS

The FFR was ≤0.80 in 166 and >0.80 in 108 patients. Stable coronary disease was present in 95%. Revascularisation was undertaken in 86.7% of the FFR≤0.80 group and in 2.8% of the group with an FFR>0.80. In-hospital adverse events were 3.3% with no pressure wire-related coronary dissection, stroke or death. At median follow-up of 5 years, patients with FFR≤0.80 and FFR>0.80 had a similar rate of cardiac death (2.6% versus 5.0%, p=0.335) and MI (2.6% versus 6.9%, p=0.154). In the FFR>0.80 group, MACE (17.8% v 7.9%; p=0.018) and TVR (12.9% v 5.3%; p=0.033) were significantly higher.

CONCLUSION

This observational study highlights the safety and long-term effectiveness of FFR-guided coronary revascularisation in patients with predominantly stable disease.

Impact of Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization of Severe Coronary Lesions on Secondary Branches

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

To analyze the percutaneous revascularization strategy for severe lesions in the secondary branches (SB) (diameter ≥ 2mm) of major epicardial arteries compared with conservative treatment.

METHODS

This study analyzed patients with severe SB lesions who underwent percutaneous revascularization treatment compared with patients who received pharmacological treatment. The study examined the percentage of branch-related events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction attributable to SB, or the need for revascularization of the SB).

RESULTS

We analyzed 679 SB lesions (662 patients). After a mean follow-up of 22.2±10.5 months, there were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the percentage of death from cardiovascular causes (1.7% vs 0.4%; P=.14), nonfatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (1.7% vs 1.7%; P=.96), the need for SB revascularization (4.1% vs 5.4%; P=.45) or in the total percentage of events (5.1% vs 6.3%; P=.54). The variables showing an association with event occurrence on multivariate analysis were diabetes (SHR, 2.87; 95%CI, 1.37-5.47; P=.004), prior AMI (SHR, 3.54; 95%CI, 1.77-7.30; P<.0001), SB reference diameter (SHR, 0.16; 95%CI, 0.03-0.97; P=.047), and lesion length (SHR, 3.77; 95%CI, 1.03-1.13; P<.0001). These results remained the same after the propensity score analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The percentage of SB-related events during follow-up is low, with no significant differences between the 2 treatment strategies. The variables associated with event occurrence in the multivariate analysis were the presence of diabetes mellitus, prior AMI, and greater lesion length.

Clinical effect of selective interventional therapy on sub-acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction under the guidance of fractional flow reserve and coronary arteriography

Objective

This study aims to compare the clinical effects of selective interventional therapy (PCI) under the guidance of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary arteriography.

Methods

Patients with sub-acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (sub-acute STEMI), who were under selective PCI treatment between April 2012 and June 2014, were included into this study. These patients were divided into two groups, based on FFR measurements: FFR-PCI group and radiography-PCI group. Then, differences in clinical symptoms, coronary angiography, intervention, and endpoint events were compared between these two groups.

Results

A total of 592 patients with sub-acute STEMI were included in this study (207 patients in the FFR-PCI group and 385 patients in the radiography-PCI group). No statistical differences were observed in baseline clinical data and coronary angiography results between these two groups. Mean stent number was greater in the radiography-PCI group (1.22 ± 0.32) than in the FFR-PCI group (1.10 ± 0.29), and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.019). During the follow-up period, 78 adverse events occurred (21 adverse events in the FFR-PCI group and 57 adverse events in the radiography-PCI group); and no statistical significance was observed between these two groups (log-rank P = 0.112).

Conclusion

Selective PCI treatment in patients with sub-acute STEMI under FFR acquired similar effects, compared to PCI treatment under the guidance of radiography, which can reduce the mean stent number.

Management of CAD in Patients with Active Cancer: the Interventional Cardiologists' Perspective

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary artery disease in patients with active cancer presents particular challenges for clinicians, as optimum management is required in order to treat the underlying malignancy and to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular diseases. Special considerations must be made in respect to either primary or secondary thrombocytopenia, the presence of coagulopathies and the propensity of bleeding, vascular access complications, and increased risk of stent thrombosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

In presence of acute coronary symptoms, the cardio-oncology team has to make a complex decision between conservative medical management or early angiography (within 24 h) and revascularization. There is a lack of reliable data on the outcomes of patients with active cancer who undergo invasive procedures for the diagnostic and treatment of coronary artery disease. Cardiac catheterization recommendations in cancer patients are being currently elaborated by cardio-oncologists in order to improve the overall survival in cancer patients with coronary artery disease.

Ischemic Heart Disease: Special Considerations in Cardio-Oncology

OPINION STATEMENT

The interplay and balance between the competing morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular diseases and cancer have a significant impact on both short- and long-term health outcomes of patients who survived cancer or are being treated for cancer. Ischemic heart disease in patients with cancer or caused by cancer therapy is a clinical problem of emerging importance. Prompt recognition and optimum management of ischemic heart disease mean that patients with cancer can successfully receive therapies to treat their malignancy and reduce morbidity and mortality due to cardiovascular disease. In this sense, the presence of cancer and cancer-related comorbidities (e.g., thrombocytopenia, propensity to bleed, thrombotic status) substantially complicates the management of cardiovascular diseases in cancer patients. In this review, we will summarize the current state of knowledge on the management strategies for ischemic disease in patients with cancer, focusing on the challenges encountered when addressing these complexities.