Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided PCI or Coronary Bypass Surgery for 3-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: 3-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with multivessel coronary disease not involving the left main have shown significantly lower rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke after CABG. These studies did not routinely use current-generation drug-eluting stents or fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide PCI. METHODS: FAME 3 (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, international, randomized trial involving patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease (not involving the left main coronary artery) in 48 centers worldwide. Patients were randomly assigned to receive FFR-guided PCI using zotarolimus drug-eluting stents or CABG. The prespecified key secondary end point of the trial reported here is the 3-year incidence of the composite of death, MI, or stroke. RESULTS: A total of 1500 patients were randomized to FFR-guided PCI or CABG. Follow-up was achieved in >96% of patients in both groups. There was no difference in the incidence of the composite of death, MI, or stroke after FFR-guided PCI compared with CABG (12.0% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.3 [95% CI, 0.98-1.83]; P=0.07). The rates of death (4.1% versus 3.9%; HR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6-1.7]; P=0.88) and stroke (1.6% versus 2.0%; HR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.4-1.7]; P=0.56) were not different. MI occurred more frequently after PCI (7.0% versus 4.2%; HR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.1-2.7]; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: At 3-year follow-up, there was no difference in the incidence of the composite of death, MI, or stroke after FFR-guided PCI with current-generation drug-eluting stents compared with CABG. There was a higher incidence of MI after PCI compared with CABG, with no difference in death or stroke. These results provide contemporary data to allow improved shared decision-making between physicians and patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02100722.

Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided PCI as Compared with Coronary Bypass Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease have been found to have better outcomes with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) than with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but studies in which PCI is guided by measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) have been lacking. METHODS: In this multicenter, international, noninferiority trial, patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo CABG or FFR-guided PCI with current-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary end point was the occurrence within 1 year of a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event, defined as death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. Noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI to CABG was prespecified as an upper boundary of less than 1.65 for the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. Secondary end points included a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1500 patients underwent randomization at 48 centers. Patients assigned to undergo PCI received a mean (±SD) of 3.7±1.9 stents, and those assigned to undergo CABG received 3.4±1.0 distal anastomoses. The 1-year incidence of the composite primary end point was 10.6% among patients randomly assigned to undergo FFR-guided PCI and 6.9% among those assigned to undergo CABG (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 2.2), findings that were not consistent with noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI (P = 0.35 for noninferiority). The incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was 7.3% in the FFR-guided PCI group and 5.2% in the CABG group (hazard ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.1). The incidences of major bleeding, arrhythmia, and acute kidney injury were higher in the CABG group than in the FFR-guided PCI group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease, FFR-guided PCI was not found to be noninferior to CABG with respect to the incidence of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1 year. (Funded by Medtronic and Abbott Vascular; FAME 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02100722.).

Index of Microcirculatory Resistance Measured during Intracoronary Adenosine-Induced Hyperemia.

BACKGROUND: The index of microcirculatory resistance is an invasive measure of coronary microvascular function that has to be calculated during maximal hyperemia, classically achieved with intravenous adenosine (IV). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of intracoronary (IC) adenosine for the calculation of IMR. METHODS AND RESULTS: 31 patients with stable coronary artery disease were included in the study. Coronary pressure and thermodilution measurements were obtained at rest and during maximal hyperemia using a pressure-temperature sensor-tipped coronary guidewire. Duplicate measurements were performed using first IC and then IV adenosine. Dispersion of transit times was comparable for IC and IV adenosine. IMR values based on IC vs IV adenosine showed a high level of agreement and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.90. Applying an upper normal limit of 25, misclassification of IMR using IC adenosine was seen in just one patient in whom IC adenosine resulted in a lower value. A simplified procedure based on a single bolus dose of saline did not change the level of agreement or the rate of misclassification. CONCLUSIONS: We found an excellent agreement between IMR values measured during hyperemia induced by IC as compared to IV adenosine. The use of IC adenosine may facilitate invasive assessment of microvascular function and is potentially time- and cost-saving with less patient discomfort as compared to IV infusion. The trail is registered with NCT03369184.

Sex Differences in Adenosine-Free Coronary Pressure Indexes: A CONTRAST Substudy.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to investigate sex differences in adenosine-free coronary pressure indexes. BACKGROUND: Several adenosine-free coronary pressure wire indexes have been proposed to assess the functional significance of coronary artery lesions; however, there is a theoretical concern that sex differences may affect diagnostic performance because of differences in resting flow and distal myocardial mass. METHODS: In this CONTRAST (Can Contrast Injection Better Approximate FFR Compared to Pure Resting Physiology?) substudy, contrast fractional flow reserve (cFFR), obtained during contrast-induced submaximal hyperemia, the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and distal/proximal coronary pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) were compared with fractional flow reserve (FFR) in 547 men and 216 women. Using FFR ≤0.8 as a reference, the diagnostic performance of each index was compared. RESULTS: Men and women had similar diameter stenosis (p = 0.78), but women were less likely to have FFR ≤0.80 than men (42.5% vs. 51.5%, p = 0.04). Sensitivity was similar among cFFR, iFR, and Pd/Pa when comparing women and men, respectively (cFFR, 77.5% vs. 75.3%; p = 0.69; iFR, 84.9% vs. 79.4%; p = 0.30; Pd/Pa, 78.8% vs. 77.3%; p = 0.78). cFFR was more specific than iFR or Pd/Pa regardless of sex (cFFR, 94.3% vs. 95.8%; p = 0.56; iFR, 75.6% vs. 80.1%; p = 0.38; Pd/Pa, 80.6% vs. 78.7%; p = 0.69). By receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, cFFR provided better diagnostic accuracy than resting indexes irrespective of sex (p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the theoretical concern, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of cFFR, iFR, and Pd/Pa did not differ between the sexes. Irrespective of sex, cFFR provides the best diagnostic performance.

Agreement of the Resting Distal to Aortic Coronary Pressure With the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio.

BACKGROUND: Recently, 2 randomized controlled trials showed that the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), a resting coronary physiological index, is noninferior to fractional flow reserve for guiding revascularization. The resting distal to aortic coronary pressure (Pd/Pa) measured at rest is another adenosine-free index widely available in the cardiac catheterization laboratory; however, little is known about the agreement of Pd/Pa using iFR as a reference standard. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to investigate the agreement of Pd/Pa with iFR. METHODS: A total of 763 patients were prospectively enrolled from 12 institutions. iFR and Pd/Pa were measured under resting conditions. Using iFR ≤0.89 as a reference standard, the agreement of Pd/Pa and its best cutoff value were assessed. RESULTS: According to the independent core laboratory analysis, iFR and Pd/Pa were analyzable in 627 and 733 patients (82.2% vs. 96.1%; p < 0.001), respectively. The median iFR and Pd/Pa were 0.90 (interquartile range: 0.85 to 0.94) and 0.92 (interquartile range: 0.88 to 0.95), and the 2 indices were highly correlated (R2 = 0.93; p < 0.001; iFR = 1.31 * Pd/Pa -0.31). According to the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, Pd/Pa showed excellent agreement (area under the curve: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.97 to 0.99; p < 0.001) with a best cutoff value of Pd/Pa ≤0.91. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 93.0%, 91.4%, 94.4%, 93.3%, and 92.7%, respectively. These results were similar in patients with acute coronary syndrome and stable angina. CONCLUSIONS: Pd/Pa was analyzable in a significantly higher number of patients than iFR. Pd/Pa showed excellent agreement with iFR, suggesting that it could be applied clinically in a similar fashion. (Can Contrast Injection Better Approximate FFR Compared to Pure Resting Physiology? [CONTRAST]; NCT02184117).

Continuum of Vasodilator Stress From Rest to Contrast Medium to Adenosine Hyperemia for Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the diagnostic performance with adenosine-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.8 of contrast-based FFR (cFFR), resting distal pressure (Pd)/aortic pressure (Pa), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). BACKGROUND: FFR objectively identifies lesions that benefit from medical therapy versus revascularization. However, FFR requires maximal vasodilation, usually achieved with adenosine. Radiographic contrast injection causes submaximal coronary hyperemia. Therefore, intracoronary contrast could provide an easy and inexpensive tool for predicting FFR. METHODS: We recruited patients undergoing routine FFR assessment and made paired, repeated measurements of all physiology metrics (Pd/Pa, iFR, cFFR, and FFR). Contrast medium and dose were per local practice, as was the dose of intracoronary adenosine. Operators were encouraged to perform both intracoronary and intravenous adenosine assessments and a final drift check to assess wire calibration. A central core lab analyzed blinded pressure tracings in a standardized fashion. RESULTS: A total of 763 subjects were enrolled from 12 international centers. Contrast volume was 8 ± 2 ml per measurement, and 8 different contrast media were used. Repeated measurements of each metric showed a bias <0.005, but a lower SD (less variability) for cFFR than resting indexes. Although Pd/Pa and iFR demonstrated equivalent performance against FFR ≤0.8 (78.5% vs. 79.9% accuracy; p = 0.78; area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.875 vs. 0.881; p = 0.35), cFFR improved both metrics (85.8% accuracy and 0.930 area; p < 0.001 for each) with an optimal binary threshold of 0.83. A hybrid decision-making strategy using cFFR required adenosine less often than when based on either Pd/Pa or iFR. CONCLUSIONS: cFFR provides diagnostic performance superior to that of Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR. For clinical scenarios or health care systems in which adenosine is contraindicated or prohibitively expensive, cFFR offers a universal technique to simplify invasive coronary physiological assessments. Yet FFR remains the reference standard for diagnostic certainty as even cFFR reached only ∼85% agreement.

VERIFY (VERification of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve for the Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis Severity in EverydaY Practice): a multicenter study in consecutive patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare fractional flow reserve (FFR) with the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in patients with coronary artery disease and also to determine whether the iFR is independent of hyperemia. BACKGROUND: FFR is a validated index of coronary stenosis severity. FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves clinical outcomes compared to angiographic guidance alone. iFR has been proposed as a new index of stenosis severity that can be measured without adenosine. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, international study of 206 consecutive patients referred for PCI and a retrospective analysis of 500 archived pressure recordings. Aortic and distal coronary pressures were measured in duplicate in patients under resting conditions and during intravenous adenosine infusion at 140 µg/kg/min. RESULTS: Compared to the FFR cut-off value of ≤0.80, the diagnostic accuracy of the iFR value of ≤0.80 was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 53% to 67%) for all vessels studied and 51% (95% CI: 43% to 59%) for those patients with FFR in the range of 0.60 to 0.90. iFR was significantly influenced by the induction of hyperemia: mean ± SD iFR at rest was 0.82 ± 0.16 versus 0.64 ± 0.18 with hyperemia (p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics confirmed that the diagnostic accuracy of iFR was similar to resting Pd/Pa and trans-stenotic pressure gradient and significantly inferior to hyperemic iFR. Analysis of our retrospectively acquired dataset showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: iFR correlates weakly with FFR and is not independent of hyperemia. iFR cannot be recommended for clinical decision making in patients with coronary artery disease.