Clinical outcomes after intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve assessment of intermediate coronary lesions. Propensity score matching of large cohorts from two institutions with a differential approach.

AIMS: Assessment of intermediate coronary lesions can be done with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). There are no randomised trials and only a small registry from one centre is available but this is subject to important bias. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of an FFR strategy compared with an IVUS strategy for intermediate lesion assessment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the outcome of patients assessed with FFR and IVUS in two centres with a differential approach. After propensity score matching 400 pairs of patients were included. Revascularisation was done when FFR was <0.75 or minimum lumen area was <4 mm2 in vessels >3 mm, and <3.5 mm2 in vessels 2.5-3 mm, along with plaque burden >50%. After FFR and IVUS, 72% and 51.2% of lesions, respectively, were left untreated (p<0.001). At one and two years no significant differences in MACE-free survival were observed in overall groups (97.7% at one year and 93.1% at two years in the FFR group and 97.7% at one year and 95.6% at two years in the IVUS group; p=0.35) and among those with deferred intervention (97.9% at one year and 94.2% at two years in the FFR group and 96.5% at one year and 93.6% at two years in the IVUS group; p=0.7). CONCLUSIONS: IVUS and FFR may be safely used to defer revascularisation of intermediate lesions. IVUS induces a higher degree of revascularisation but much lower than previously reported and does not affect the clinical outcome.

[Antithrombotic treatment in hypertensive patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. CARDIOTENS 99 study]. / Empleo de fármacos antitrombóticos en pacientes hipertensos con fibrilación auricular crónica. Estudio CARDIOTENS 99.

BACKGROUND: Our main goals were to know the actual degree of oral anticoagulation and antiaggregation in hypertensive patients with atrial fibrillation in the daily clinical practice in Spain and to analyze any differences between primary care physicians and cardiologists. PATIENTS AND METHOD: 32,051 outpatients attended the same day by 1,159 physicians (21% cardiologists) were prospectively included in a database taking into account a history of hypertension and atrial fibrillation, demographic data and ongoing treatments. RESULTS: Hypertension was detected in 10,555 patients and 999 of them had both hypertension and atrial fibrillation (9.46%: 435 males [44%] and 564 females [56%]). 53% patients were attended by primary care physicians and the rest by cardiologists. 33% of hypertensive patients with atrial fibrillation were on oral anticoagulation: 41% of them attended by cardiologists and 26% by primary care physicians (p < 0.05). These differences persisted when the patients were compared on the basis of their age. 39% of hypertensive patients were on oral antiaggregation treatment, without differences in both groups except for those aged less than 65 years who were found to receive more antiaggregation in primary care (36% vs 24%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients is about 10%; there is a suboptimal degree of utilization of oral anticoagulation, which is more evident in patients attended by primary care physicians; elderly patients (> 80 years-old) were found to receive less anticoagulants and more antiaggregants both in primary health-care and cardiology health-care.