Dyssynchrony contributes to false-positive myocardial perfusion SPECT results in patients with stable angina

Utility of Imaging Modalities in Coronary Lesions With Borderline Fractional Flow Reserve

BACKGROUND

Coronary intervention is routinely deferred in intermediate lesions with fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≥ 0.80. Patients with borderline FFR (0.80-0.85) who were initially deferred, have been shown to have higher risk of future interventions; however, the data is limited, and the long term prognosis in these patients remains unknown. We assessed the utility of adjunctive imaging modalities to determine the need for intervention in lesions with borderline FFR.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography at Einstein Medical Center from January 2013 to April 2016. All patients with borderline FFR (0.80-0.85) were included. Patients were divided into Defer or Perform intervention groups based on additional available or procured clinical data. The Perform group was further stratified into intervention With or Without adjunctive imaging guidance (including intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, echocardiography, and exercise or pharmacologic stress test). Follow-up data was collected for all patients, which included future target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and acute coronary syndromes).

RESULTS

A total of 196 patients were eligible. Median (IQR) FFR in Perform and Defer groups was 0.81 (0.8-0.83) and 0.84 (0.82-0.85) respectively. Median (IQR) follow up was 21 (13-29) and 25 (15-36) months respectively. Overall MACE rate in Perform group (n = 101) was 20.8% (n = 21) and Defer group (n = 95) was 15.8% (n = 15). The stratified MACE rate in Perform group With imaging guidance (n = 57) was 17.5% (n = 10) and Without imaging guidance (n = 44) was 25% (n = 11). Overall, the FFR only guided management (n = 196) led to MACE rate of 18.4% (n = 36); whereas, FFR With imaging guidance (n = 136) led to MACE rate of 16.2% (n = 22). The p values were non-significant in each of the above group comparisons due to relatively low numbers with trends as noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that intervention of coronary lesions with borderline FFR under imaging guidance, although not significant, trends towards improved cardiovascular outcomes compared with intervention in this group without adjunctive imaging. These findings are merely speculative without achieving statistical significance in a small subset and need to be further validated in a large scale prospective study.