Health-Related Quality of Life and Angina in Fractional Flow Reserve- Versus Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: FARGO Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography Randomization for Graft Optimization).

BACKGROUND: In coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) is insufficiently investigated. Stenosis assessment usually relies on visual estimates of lesion severity. This study evaluated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and angina after FFR- versus angiography-guided CABG. METHODS: One hundred patients referred for CABG were randomized to FFR- or angiography-guided CABG. In the FFR group, lesions with FFR>0.80 were deferred, while the surgeon was blinded to the FFR values in the angiography group. Before and 6 months after CABG, HRQoL was assessed by the health state classifier EQ-5D of the EuroQoL 5-level instrument and angina status based on the Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification system were registered. RESULTS: Six-month angiography included FFR evaluations of deferred lesions. In total, completed EQ-5D of the EuroQoL 5-level instrument questionnaires were available in 86 patients (43 in the FFR versus 43 in the angiography-guided group). HRQoL was significantly improved and angina significantly decreased from baseline to 6 months after CABG with no difference between the randomization groups. Graft failure rates and clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. Patients with graft failure or FFR<0.80 of the previous deferred lesions had significantly lower visual analogue scale scores (78.7±14.2 versus 86.8±14.7, P=0.004) and more angina compared with patients without graft failure or FFR≥0.80 at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: FFR- versus angiography-guided CABG demonstrated similar improvements in HRQoL and angina 6 months after CABG. Graft failure or low FFR in deferred lesions were associated with low HRQoL and angina. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02477371.

The association between self-reported health status and adverse events: a comparison among coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

PURPOSE: While several studies have investigated clinical outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), studies investigating self-reported health and the association with adverse outcomes are limited. Thus, the aim was to investigate differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety and depression at discharge and the association with a composite endpoint of the first event of acute cardiac readmission, revascularisation or 1-year mortality among patients undergoing CABG vs. PCI. METHODS: Data from the national cohort study, DenHeart, were used, including measures of HRQoL; EuroQoL-5D-5L (EQ-5D Index Score and VAS) and HeartQoL (Global, Physical and Emotional), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS) and register-based follow-up. A total of 7000 patients were included (CABG n = 652, PCI n = 6348) (median age 65, 75% men). Cox Proportional Hazard models were performed among a propensity-matched population of responders (n = 520). RESULTS: HRQoL was significantly better among patients undergoing PCI vs. CABG, but with no differences in time to readmission or revascularisation. HRQoL, anxiety and depression were significantly associated with the risk of the composite endpoint among the PCI group (Hazard Ratio, HR (95% confidence intervals, CI) [EQ-5D index score 3.07 (1.67-5.67), EQ-5D VAS 0.97 (0.96-0.99), HeartQol Global 0.61 (0.38-0.95), HeartQol Emotional 0.56 (0.39-0.80), HADS-D ≥ 8 3.12 (1.61-6.01), HADS-A ≥ 8 2.08 (1.14-3.80)]. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing PCI reported better HRQoL at discharge compared with patients undergoing CABG, whereas readmission rates were similar. Self-reported health was associated with the risk of adverse events among patients undergoing PCI, but not among patients undergoing CABG. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01926145.

Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiographically-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: The value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is uncertain, and stenosis assessments usually rely on visual estimates of lesion severity. OBJECTIVES: This randomized clinical trial evaluated graft patency and clinical outcome after FFR-guided CABG versus angiography-guided CABG. METHODS: A total of 100 patients referred for CABG were randomly assigned to FFR-guided or angiography-guided CABG. Based on the coronary angiogram, a heart team made a graft plan for all patients, and FFR evaluations were performed. In FFR-guided CABG, coronary lesions with FFR >0.80 were deferred, and a new graft plan was designed accordingly, whereas the surgeon was blinded to the FFR values in patients who underwent angiography-guided CABG. The primary endpoint was graft failure in the percentage of all grafts after 6 months. RESULTS: Angiographic follow-up at 6 months was available for 72 patients (39 vs. 33 in the FFR-guided and angiography-guided groups, respectively). Graft failures of all grafts were similar in both groups (16% vs. 12%; p = 0.97). Rates of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also similar in the study groups, and no difference was seen in revascularization before angiographic follow-up. After 6 months, deferred lesions (n = 24) showed a significant reduction in mean FFR from index to follow-up (0.89 ± 0.05 vs. 0.81 ± 0.11; p = 0.002). Index FFR did not influence graft patency. CONCLUSIONS: FFR-guided CABG had similar graft failure rates and clinical outcomes as angiography-guided CABG. However, FFR was reduced significantly after 6 months in deferred lesions. (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography Randomization for Graft Optimization [FARGO]; NCT02477371).