Impact of renal dysfunction on 1-year mortality after acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Survival after acute myocardial infarction (MI) is linked to multiple factors, including mild or severe chronic kidney dysfunction. The aim of this study was to determine to what extent a reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) influences 1-year mortality when risk level at admission and quality of care are taken into account. METHODS: A prospective registry was carried out in a geographically delimited area, including all patients admitted with a diagnosis of acute MI over a 6-month period. The GFR was calculated from serum creatinine levels, and patients were stratified into 3 groups: GFR1 >59 mL/min per 1.73 m2, GFR2 >29 and <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and GFR3 <30 mL/min per 1.73 m2. A risk index based on initial presentation was calculated. Inhospital and discharge treatments were recorded, taking into account possible contraindications. Patients were followed up for 1 year to assess all-cause mortality rate. RESULTS: A total of 754 patients were included, 333 ST-elevation MI and 421 non-ST-elevation MI. Overall 1-year mortality was 11.5%. Patients with impaired GFR were older, with more comorbidities, and received fewer effective therapies (less reperfusion, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors, early angiography, beta-blockers, and statins). One-year mortality increased as GFR decreased: GFR1 2.3% (5/215), GFR2 9.4% (31/328), and GFR3 24.2% (51/211) (P < .001 for trend). By multivariable logistic regression, a significant association was found between 1-year mortality and risk index (odds ratio [OR] 1.41, 95% CI 1.16-1.71 per 10% increase in risk index), GFR (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.98 per additional GFR unit), use of beta-blockers (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.50 for users), and early coronary angiography (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.32-0.66 for patients submitted to angiography). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute MI, decreased GFR is associated with higher mortality, and this relation remains strong after adjustment for the level of risk at admission and the effective treatments used.

One-year outcome of patients submitted to routine fractional flow reserve assessment to determine the need for angioplasty.

AIMS: In patients submitted to coronary angiography, fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment by a pressure wire can be used to guide the decision for revascularization. Routine application of FFR assessment and 1-year outcome of patients are poorly documented. The aim of this study was to report a 4-year single-centre experience where the use of FFR for decision making in equivocal lesions is encouraged. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective registry was designed to collect clinical and angiographic characteristics, as well as 1-year clinical follow-up for all patients submitted to FFR assessment. The decisional cut-off point for revascularization was 0.80. Over a 4-year period, out of 6415 coronary angiographies, FFR was measured in 407 (6.3%) patients (469 lesions). FFR was assessed through 4 or 5 Fr diagnostic catheters in 330 (81%). Median FFR value was 0.87 (0.80; 0.93). On the basis of FFR results, 271 (67%) patients were treated with medical therapy alone. A subset of 71 (17%) patients were not treated in accordance with the results of FFR. All patients but four (i.e. 99%) had 1-year clinical follow-up. Three hundred and forty four (85%) were free from clinical event, six (1.5%) patients died, five (4%) had an acute coronary syndrome, and 20 (5%) underwent target-vessel revascularization. Event-free survival was comparable in patients with vs. without revascularization (0.94 +/- 0.02 and 0.93 +/- 0.01, respectively). Patients had significantly better 1-year outcome when treated in accordance with the results of the FFR assessment. CONCLUSION: In routine practice, FFR assessment during diagnostic angiography was performed in 6.3%. On the basis of FFR, two-thirds of patients with 'intermediate' lesions were left unrevascularized, with a favourable outcome, when FFR was above 0.80. These data suggest that routine use of FFR during diagnostic catheterization is feasible, safe, and provide help to guide decision making.