Usefulness of Routine Fractional Flow Reserve for Clinical Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes.

Importance: Approximately one-third of patients considered for coronary revascularization have diabetes, which is a major determinant of clinical outcomes, often influencing the choice of the revascularization strategy. The usefulness of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide treatment in this population is understudied and has been questioned. Objective: To evaluate the usefulness and rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of integrating FFR in management decisions for patients with diabetes who undergo coronary angiography. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the PRIME-FFR study derived from the merger of the POST-IT study (Portuguese Study on the Evaluation of FFR-Guided Treatment of Coronary Disease [March 2012-November 2013]) and R3F study (French Study of FFR Integrated Multicenter Registries Implementation of FFR in Routine Practice [October 2008-June 2010]), 2 prospective multicenter registries that shared a common design. A population of all-comers for whom angiography disclosed ambiguous lesions was analyzed for rates, patterns, and outcomes associated with management reclassification, including revascularization deferral, in patients with vs without diabetes. Data analysis was performed from June to August 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization (MACE) at 1 year. Results: Among 1983 patients (1503 [77%] male; mean [SD] age, 65 [10] years), 701 had diabetes, and FFR was performed for 1.4 lesions per patient (58.2% of lesions in the left anterior descending artery; mean [SD] stenosis, 56% [11%]; mean [SD] FFR, 0.81 [0.01]). Reclassification by FFR was high and similar in patients with and without diabetes (41.2% vs 37.5%, P = .13), but reclassification from medical treatment to revascularization was more frequent in the former (142 of 342 [41.5%] vs 230 of 730 [31.5%], P = .001). There was no statistical difference between the 1-year rates of MACE in reclassified (9.7%) and nonreclassified patients (12.0%) (P = .37). Among patients with diabetes, FFR-based deferral identified patients with a lower risk of MACE at 12 months (25 of 296 [8.4%]) compared with those undergoing revascularization (47 of 257 [13.1%]) (P = .04), and the rate was of the same magnitude of the observed rate among deferred patients without diabetes (7.9%, P = .87). Status of insulin treatment had no association with outcomes. Patients (6.6% of the population) in whom FFR was disregarded had the highest MACE rates regardless of diabetes status. Conclusions and Relevance: Routine integration of FFR for the management of coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes may be associated with a high rate of treatment reclassification. Management strategies guided by FFR, including revascularization deferral, may be useful for patients with diabetes.

Everolimus drug-eluting stent performance in patients with long coronary lesions: The multicenter Longprime registry.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of the Xience Prime everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in long coronary lesions in a real-world population. BACKGROUND: Long lesions are considered difficult technically and in terms of achieving successful clinical outcomes. With first generation DES, MACE can be as high as 10% at a short-medium term follow-up. There are a few data available in this subset regarding the use of second generation DES METHODS: A prospective, multicenter registry of consecutive patients (aged 64.8 ± 11.2 years, 77% men and 33% diabetics) in 29 tertiary hospitals with de novo > 24 mm lesions in vessels of 2.25-4 mm was performed. The primary and secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) and stent thrombosis (ST) at 1, 12, and 24 months. Patients were on dual antiplatelet therapy during 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 610 patients with 705 long lesions were included (1.2 per patient). Lesion length was 34.59 ± 11.17 mm and vessel size 2.93 ± 0.41 mm. Stented length was 39.83 ± 14.08 mm (1.4 stents per lesion). Predilatation/postdiltatation was performed in 75 and 33% of the cases, intravascular ultrasound in 15%. The device success rate was 99.1%. MACE and ST rates at 1, 12, and 24-months follow-up were 0.3, 2.1, and 5.4% and 0.2, 0.7, and 1.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this real-world population, the Xience Prime EES performs extremely well in long lesions, with a very low rate of both MACE and ST.

Impact of Routine Fractional Flow Reserve on Management Decision and 1-Year Clinical Outcome of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: PRIME-FFR (Insights From the POST-IT [Portuguese Study on the Evaluation of FFR-Guided Treatment of Coronary Disease] and R3F [French FFR Registry] Integrated Multicenter Registries - Implementation of FFR [Fractional Flow Reserve] in Routine Practice).

BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is not firmly established as a guide to treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Primary goals were to evaluate the impact of integrating FFR on management decisions and on clinical outcome of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angiography, as compared with patients with stable coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: R3F (French FFR Registry) and POST-IT (Portuguese Study on the Evaluation of FFR-Guided Treatment of Coronary Disease), sharing a common design, were pooled as PRIME-FFR (Insights From the POST-IT and R3F Integrated Multicenter Registries - Implementation of FFR in Routine Practice). Investigators prospectively defined management strategy based on angiography before performing FFR. Final decision after FFR and 1-year clinical outcome were recorded. From 1983 patients, in whom FFR was prospectively used to guide treatment, 533 sustained ACS (excluding acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction). In ACS, FFR was performed in 1.4 lesions per patient, mostly in left anterior descending (58%), with a mean percent stenosis of 58±12% and a mean FFR of 0.82±0.09. In patients with ACS, reclassification by FFR was high and similar to those with non-ACS (38% versus 39%; P=NS). The pattern of reclassification was different, however, with less patients with ACS reclassified from revascularization to medical treatment compared with those with non-ACS (P=0.01). In ACS, 1-year outcome of patients reclassified based on FFR (FFR against angiography) was as good as that of nonreclassified patients (FFR concordant with angiography), with no difference in major cardiovascular event (8.0% versus 11.6%; P=0.20) or symptoms (92.3% versus 94.8% angina free; P=0.25). Moreover, FFR-based deferral to medical treatment was as safe in patients with ACS as in patients with non-ACS (major cardiovascular event, 8.0% versus 8.5%; P=0.83; revascularization, 3.8% versus 5.9%; P=0.24; and freedom from angina, 93.6% versus 90.2%; P=0.35). These findings were confirmed in ACS explored at the culprit lesion. In patients (6%) in whom the information derived from FFR was disregarded, a dire outcome was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Routine integration of FFR into the decision-making process of ACS patients with obstructive coronary artery disease is associated with a high reclassification rate of treatment (38%). A management strategy guided by FFR, divergent from that suggested by angiography, including revascularization deferral, is safe in ACS.

Outcome impact of coronary revascularization strategy reclassification with fractional flow reserve at time of diagnostic angiography: insights from a large French multicenter fractional flow reserve registry.

BACKGROUND: There is no large report of the impact of fractional flow reserve (FFR) on the reclassification of the coronary revascularization strategy on individual patients referred for diagnostic angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Registre Français de la FFR (R3F) investigated 1075 consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic angiography including an FFR investigation at 20 French centers. Investigators were asked to define prospectively their revascularization strategy a priori based on angiography before performing the FFR. The final revascularization strategy, reclassification of the strategy by FFR, and 1-year clinical follow-up were prospectively recorded. The strategy a priori based on angiography was medical therapy in 55% and revascularization in 45% (percutaneous coronary intervention, 38%; coronary artery bypass surgery, 7%). Patients were treated according to FFR in 1028/1075 (95.7%). The applied strategy after FFR was medical therapy in 58% and revascularization in 42% (percutaneous coronary intervention, 32%; coronary artery bypass surgery, 10%). The final strategy applied differed from the strategy a priori in 43% of cases: in 33% of a priori medical patients, in 56% of patients undergoing a priori percutaneous coronary intervention, and in 51% of patients undergoing a priori coronary artery bypass surgery. In reclassified patients treated based on FFR and in disagreement with the angiography-based a priori decision (n=464), the 1-year outcome (major cardiac event, 11.2%) was as good as in patients in whom final applied strategy concurred with the angiography-based a priori decision (n=611; major cardiac event, 11.9%; log-rank, P=0.78). At 1 year, >93% patients were asymptomatic without difference between reclassified and nonreclassified patients (Generalized Linear Mixed Model, P=0.75). Reclassification safety was preserved in high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: This study shows that performing FFR during diagnostic angiography is associated with reclassification of the revascularization decision in about half of the patients. It further demonstrates that it is safe to pursue a revascularization strategy divergent from that suggested by angiography but guided by FFR.