Survival of Patients With Angina Pectoris Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Intracoronary Pressure Wire Guidance.

BACKGROUND: Intracoronary pressure wire measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) provides decision-making guidance during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, limited data exist on the effect of FFR on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with stable angina pectoris. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between the usage of FFR and all-cause mortality in patients with stable angina undergoing PCI. METHODS: Data was used from the SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry) on all patients undergoing PCI (with or without FFR guidance) for stable angina pectoris in Sweden between January 2005 and March 2016. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoints were stent thrombosis (ST) or restenosis and peri-procedural complications. The primary model was multilevel Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted with Kernel-based propensity score matching. RESULTS: In total, 23,860 patients underwent PCI for stable angina pectoris; of these, FFR guidance was used in 3,367. After a median follow-up of 4.7 years (range 0 to 11.2 years), the FFR group had lower adjusted risk estimates for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73 to 0.89; p < 0.001), and ST and restenosis (hazard ratio: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.96; p = 0.022). The number of peri-procedural complications did not differ between the groups (adjusted odds ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.19; p = 0.697). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, the use of FFR was associated with a lower risk of long-term mortality, ST, and restenosis in patients undergoing PCI for stable angina pectoris. This study supports the current European and American guidelines for the use of FFR during PCI and shows that intracoronary pressure wire guidance confers prognostic benefit in patients with stable angina pectoris.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: A prespecified subgroup analysis from VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART.

AIMS: In the Bivalirudin versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated according to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial (VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART), bivalirudin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. We assessed whether the access site had an impact on the primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding at 180 days and whether it interacted with bivalirudin/unfractionated heparin. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 6006 patients with acute coronary syndrome planned for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomised to either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Arterial access was left to the operator discretion. Overall, 90.5% of patients underwent transradial access and 9.5% transfemoral access. Baseline risk was higher in transfemoral access. The unadjusted hazard ratio for the primary outcome was lower with transradial access (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.67, p<0.001) and remained lower after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.84, p<0.001). Transradial access was associated with lower risk of death (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.60, p<0.001) and major bleeding (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.75, p<0.001). There was no interaction between treatment with bivalirudin and access site for the primary endpoint (p=0.976) or major bleeding (p=0.801). CONCLUSIONS: Transradial access was associated with lower risk of death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding at 180 days. Bivalirudin was not associated with less bleeding, irrespective of access site.