Assessment of Coronary Stenoses for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Evidence regarding the comparative efficacy of the different methods to determine the significance of coronary stenoses in the catheterization laboratory is lacking. We aimed to compare all available methods guiding the decision to perform percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL until October 5, 2023. We included trials that randomized patients with greater than 30% stenoses who were considered for PCI and reported major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 15 trials with 16,333 participants with a mean weighted follow-up of 34 months. The trials contained a median of 49.3% (interquartile range: 32.6%, 100%) acute coronary syndrome participants. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) was associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared with coronary angiography (CA) (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.82, high certainty), fractional flow reserve (FFR) (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.92, moderate certainty), and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.82, moderate certainty), and ranked first for MACE (88.1% probability of being the best). FFR (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06, moderate certainty) and iFR (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.28, moderate certainty) likely did not decrease the risk of MACE compared with CA. Intravascular imaging may not be associated with a significant decrease in MACE compared with CA (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17, low certainty) when used to guide the decision to perform PCI. In conclusion, a decision to perform PCI based on QFR was associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared with CA, FFR, and iFR in a mixed stable coronary disease and acute coronary syndrome population. These hypothesis-generating findings should be validated in large, randomized, head-to-head trials.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) versus angiography in guiding management to optimise outcomes in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (FAMOUS-NSTEMI) developmental trial: cost-effectiveness using a mixed trial- and model-based methods.

BACKGROUND: In the Fractional flow reserve (FFR) versus angiography in guiding management to optimise outcomes in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (FAMOUS) clinical trial, FFR was shown to significantly reduce coronary revascularisation, compared to visual interpretation of standard coronary angiography without FFR. We estimated the cost-effectiveness from a UK National Health Service perspective, based on the results of FAMOUS. METHODS: A mixed trial- and model-based approach using decision and statistical modelling was used. Within-trial (1-year) costs and QALYs were assembled at the individual level and then modelled on subsequent management strategy [coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or medical therapy (MT)] and major adverse coronary events (death, MI, stroke and revascularisation). One-year resource uses included: material, hospitalisation, medical, health professional service use and events. Utilities were derived from individual EQ5D responses. Unit costs were derived from the literature. Outcomes were extended to a lifetime on the basis of MACE during the 1st year. Costs and QALYs were modelled using generalized linear models whilst MACE was modelled using logistic regression. The analysis adopted a payer perspective. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5 %. RESULTS: Costs were related to the subsequent management strategy and MACE whilst QALYs were not. FFR led to a modest cost increase, albeit an imprecise increase, over both the trial [£112 (-£129 to £357)] and lifetime horizons [£133 (-£199 to £499)]. FFR led to a small, albeit imprecise, increase in QALYs over both the trial [0.02 (-0.03 to 0.06)] and lifetime horizons [0.03 (-0.21 to 0.28)]. The mean ICER was £7516/QALY and £4290/QALY over the trial and lifetime horizons, respectively. Decision remained high; FFR had 64 and 59 % probability of cost-effectiveness over trial and lifetime horizons, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FFR was cost-effective at the mean, albeit with considerable decision uncertainty. Uncertainty can be reduced with more information on long-term health events.

Integrated physiologic assessment of ischemic heart disease in real-world practice using index of microcirculatory resistance and fractional flow reserve: insights from the International Index of Microcirculatory Resistance Registry.

BACKGROUND: The index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) is a quantitative and specific index for coronary microcirculation. However, the distribution and determinants of IMR have not been fully investigated in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients who underwent elective measurement of both fractional flow reserve (FFR) and IMR were enrolled from 8 centers in 5 countries. Patients with acute myocardial infarction were excluded. To adjust for the influence of collateral flow, IMR values were corrected with Yong's formula (IMRcorr). High IMR was defined as greater than the 75th percentile in each of the major coronary arteries. FFR≤0.80 was defined as an ischemic value. 1096 patients with 1452 coronary arteries were analyzed (mean age 61.1, male 71.2%). Mean FFR was 0.84 and median IMRcorr was 16.6 U (Q1, Q3 12.4 U, 23.0 U). There was no correlation between IMRcorr and FFR values (r=0.01, P=0.62), and the categorical agreement of FFR and IMRcorr was low (kappa value=-0.04, P=0.10). There was no correlation between IMRcorr and angiographic % diameter stenosis (r=-0.03, P=0.25). Determinants of high IMR were previous myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR] 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-3.74, P=0.01), right coronary artery (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.54-2.84, P<0.01), female (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.18-2.38, P<0.01), and obesity (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.31-2.49, P<0.01). Determinants of FFR ≤0.80 were left anterior descending coronary artery (OR 4.31, 95% CI 2.92-6.36, P<0.01), angiographic diameter stenosis ≥50% (OR 5.16, 95% CI 3.66-7.28, P<0.01), male (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.38-3.35, P<0.01), and age (per 10 years, OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01-1.46, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: IMR showed no correlation with FFR and angiographic lesion severity, and the predictors of high IMR value were different from those for ischemic FFR value. Therefore, integration of IMR into FFR measurement may provide additional insights regarding the relative contribution of macro- and microvascular disease in patients with ischemic heart disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02186093.

Assessment of Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Recent Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Comparative Study With 3-T Stress Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

BACKGROUND: The use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in acute coronary syndromes is controversial. The British Heart Foundation Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Guiding Management to Optimize Outcomes in Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAMOUS-NSTEMI) study (NCT01764334) has recently demonstrated the safety and feasibility of FFR measurement in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. We report the findings of the cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) substudy to assess the diagnostic accuracy of FFR compared with 3.0-T stress CMR perfusion. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred six patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who had been referred for early invasive management were included from 2 centers. FFR was measured in all major patent epicardial coronary arteries with a visual stenosis estimated at ≥30%, and if percutaneous coronary intervention was performed, an FFR assessment was repeated. Myocardial perfusion was assessed with stress perfusion CMR at 3 T. The mean age was 56.7±9.8 years; 82.6% were men. Mean time from FFR evaluation to CMR was 6.1±3.1 days. The mean±SD left ventricular ejection fraction was 58.2±9.1%. Mean infarct size was 5.4±7.1%, and mean troponin concentration was 5.2±9.2 µg/L. There were 34 fixed and 160 inducible perfusion defects. There was a negative correlation between the number of segments with a perfusion abnormality and FFR (r=-0.77; P<0.0001). The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for an FFR of ≤0.8 were 91.4%, 92.2%, 76%, and 97%, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy was 92%. The positive and negative predictive values of FFR for flow-limiting coronary artery disease (FFR≤0.8) in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (n=21) who underwent perfusion CMR before invasive angiography were 92% and 93%, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that the optimal cutoff value of FFR for demonstrating reversible ischemia on CMR was ≤0.805 (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.94 [0.9-0.99]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: FFR in patients with recent non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction showed high concordance with myocardial perfusion in matched territories as revealed by 3.0-T stress perfusion CMR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02073422.

Invasive assessment of the coronary microcirculation in the catheter laboratory.

Historically much of our understanding of the coronary circulation has been centered towards the epicardial vessels. However, recent work has highlighted the importance of the coronary microcirculation across a broad spectrum of clinical conditions in influencing patient outcomes. Therefore an ability to measure microvascular function is most valuable. While evaluation of the epicardial coronary circulation is widely understood, interrogation of the coronary microcirculation is more complex. Many methods are available to assess the integrity of the microcirculation in the catheter laboratory. This review will discuss the physiology of the coronary microcirculation and evaluate the utility of available invasive techniques.

Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial.

AIM: We assessed the management and outcomes of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients randomly assigned to fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided management or angiography-guided standard care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a prospective, multicentre, parallel group, 1 : 1 randomized, controlled trial in 350 NSTEMI patients with ≥1 coronary stenosis ≥30% of the lumen diameter assessed visually (threshold for FFR measurement) (NCT01764334). Enrolment took place in six UK hospitals from October 2011 to May 2013. Fractional flow reserve was disclosed to the operator in the FFR-guided group (n = 176). Fractional flow reserve was measured but not disclosed in the angiography-guided group (n = 174). Fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 was an indication for revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). The median (IQR) time from the index episode of myocardial ischaemia to angiography was 3 (2, 5) days. For the primary outcome, the proportion of patients treated initially by medical therapy was higher in the FFR-guided group than in the angiography-guided group [40 (22.7%) vs. 23 (13.2%), difference 95% (95% CI: 1.4%, 17.7%), P = 0.022]. Fractional flow reserve disclosure resulted in a change in treatment between medical therapy, PCI or CABG in 38 (21.6%) patients. At 12 months, revascularization remained lower in the FFR-guided group [79.0 vs. 86.8%, difference 7.8% (-0.2%, 15.8%), P = 0.054]. There were no statistically significant differences in health outcomes and quality of life between the groups. CONCLUSION: In NSTEMI patients, angiography-guided management was associated with higher rates of coronary revascularization compared with FFR-guided management. A larger trial is necessary to assess health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (FAMOUS-NSTEMI): rationale and design of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), coronary arteriography is usually recommended; but visual interpretation of the angiogram is subjective. We hypothesized that functional assessment of coronary stenosis severity with a pressure-sensitive guide wire (fractional flow reserve [FFR]) would have additive diagnostic, clinical, and health economic utility as compared with angiography-guided standard care. METHODS AND DESIGN: A prospective multicenter parallel-group 1:1 randomized controlled superiority trial in 350 NSTEMI patients with ≥1 coronary stenosis ≥30% severity (threshold for FFR measurement) will be conducted. Patients will be randomized immediately after coronary angiography to the FFR-guided group or angiography-guided group. All patients will then undergo FFR measurement in all vessels with a coronary stenosis ≥30% severity including culprit and nonculprit lesions. Fractional flow reserve will be disclosed to guide treatment in the FFR-guided group but not disclosed in the "angiography-guided" group. In the FFR-guided group, an FFR ≤0.80 will be an indication for revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery, as appropriate. The primary outcome is the between-group difference in the proportion of patients allocated to medical management only compared with revascularization. Secondary outcomes include the occurrence of cardiac death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or heart failure, quality of life, and health care costs. The minimum and average follow-up periods for the primary analysis are 6 and 18 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our developmental clinical trial will address the feasibility of FFR measurement in NSTEMI and the influence of FFR disclosure on treatment decisions and health and economic outcomes.

The invasive assessment of coronary atherosclerosis and stents using optical coherence tomography: a clinical update.

Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) remains one of the leading causes of death. Atherosclerosis has been intensely researched given the IHD prevalence and the financial impacts on healthcare systems. More recently, in vivo characterisation of coronary atherosclerotic plaque and tissue responses following stent implantation in a coronary artery has been made possible by a novel technology called optical coherence tomography (OCT). OCT is a light-based, invasive, intracoronary imaging modality long applied to the field of ophthalmology and now in clinical use worldwide. It gives a unique view of within the coronary artery using near-infrared light with a resolution of 15 microns, 10 times higher than other invasive coronary imaging techniques like intravascular ultrasound. The technology is being adopted to comprehensively detect features that make plaques 'vulnerable' (eg, large lipid pool, thin, fibrous-cap atheroma), whether stents are implanted optimally within the artery, and visualise the small layers of tissue that form over stent metal surfaces over time, which in turn may provide surrogate markers for long-term stent safety and help guide the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy, a topic of big discussion at the current point of time.