Procedural and one-year outcomes following drug-eluting stent and drug-coated balloon combination for the treatment of de novo diffuse coronary artery disease: the HYPER Study.

BACKGROUND: De novo diffuse coronary artery disease (CAD) is a challenging scenario in interventional cardiology with limited treatment option, beside stent implantation. In this context, a hybrid approach, combining the use of drug-eluting stent (DES) and drug-coated balloon (DCB) to treat different segments of the same lesion (e.g. long lesion and/or true bifurcation), might be an interesting and alternative strategy to limit the metal amount. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a hybrid approach in addressing percutaneous treatment of de novo diffuse CAD. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter study including patients affected by de novo diffuse CAD treated with a hybrid approach from April 2019 to December 2020. Angiographic and clinical data were collected. The primary endpoint was the one-year device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE, cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [ID-TLR]). Periprocedural myocardial infarctions and periprocedural success were included among secondary endpoints. RESULTS: One hundred six patients were included, mean age was 68.2±10.2 years and 78.3% were male. De novo diffuse CAD consisted of 52.8% long lesions and 47.2% true bifurcation lesions. Significant increase in the final minimal lumen diameters and significant decrease in the final diameter stenosis were observed when compared to the baseline values in both DES- and DCB-target segments. Procedural success was 96.2%. DOCE at one-year was 3.7%, with all the adverse events characterized by ID-TLR. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of DES and DCB could be a safe and effective treatment option for the treatment of de novo diffuse CAD (NCT03939468).

Prognostic value of combined fractional flow reserve and pressure-bounded coronary flow reserve: outcomes in FFR and Pb-CFR assessment.

BACKGROUND: Coronary flow reserve (CFR) has an emerging role to predict outcome in patients with and without flow-limiting stenoses. However, the role of its surrogate pressure bounded-CFR (Pb-CFR) is controversial. We investigated the usefulness of combined use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and Pb-CFR to predict outcomes. METHODS: This is a sub-study of the PROPHET-FFR Trial, including patients with chronic coronary syndrome and functionally tested coronary lesions. Patients were divided into four groups based on positive or negative FFR (cut-off 0.80) and preserved (lower boundary ≥2) or reduced (upper boundary <2) Pb-CFR: Group1 FFR≤0.80/ Pb-CFR <2; Group 2 FFR≤0.80/Pb-CFR≥2; Group 3 FFR >0.80/Pb-CFR<2; Group 4 FFR>0.80/Pb-CFR≥2. Lesions with positive FFR were treated with PCI. Primary endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, unplanned cardiac hospitalization at 36-months. RESULTS: A total of 609 patients and 816 lesions were available for the analysis. At Kaplan-Meier analysis MACEs rate was significantly different between groups (36.7% Group 1, 27.4% Group 2, 19.2% Group 3, 22.6% Group 4, P=0.019) and more prevalent in groups with FFR≤0.80 irrespective of Pb-CFR. In case of discrepancy, no difference in MACEs were observed between groups stratified by Pb-CFR. FFR≤0.80 was associated with an increased MACEs rate (30.2% vs. 21.5%, P<0.01) while Pb-CFR<2 was not (24.5% vs. 24.2% Pb-CFR≥2 P=0.67). CONCLUSIONS: FFR confirms its ability to predict outcomes in patients with intermediate coronary stenoses. Pb-CFR does not add any relevant prognostic information.

Optimal management of patients after acute coronary syndrome.

Patients with clinically established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are at a very high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. An adequate management of risk factors and the implementation of healthy behaviours significantly decrease the risk of unfavourable clinical outcomes and future cardiovascular events, including death. Patients discharged after an acute coronary syndrome should be managed according to their individual risk level in order to ensure the appropriate treatment. Nevertheless, care pathways should also take into consideration the available resources and the logistical/structural aspects. In this setting, cardiac rehabilitation is prosed as a multidisciplinary approach to improving daily function and reducing cardiovascular risk factors. The organization of a network with the involvement of different medical and non-medical figures is essential to ensure successful outcomes and expected cost-effectiveness.

Acute coronary syndromes and multivessel coronary artery disease.

Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease are frequently encountered during clinical practice and those patients are at higher risk of subsequent acute cardiovascular events. In patients presenting with both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, complete revascularization is associated with decreased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. Nevertheless, the optimal timing of the intervention and treatment modality are still in discussions. Furthermore, non-culprit lesions assessment based on stenosis severity, either on visual or on functional evaluation, may not provide information about vulnerable plaques prone to thrombosis. Therefore, insights from intracoronary imaging could further identify high-risk plaque and patients at higher risk of future adverse events. This article aims to provide an overview of current guideline recommendations, envisioning future perspectives for the treatment of patients with ACS and multivessel disease.

Calcified coronary lesions.

The treatment of calcific coronary lesions is still a major interventional issue in haemodynamics laboratories. The prevalence of the disease is even increasing, considering the general ageing of the population undergoing coronarography, as well as the often associated comorbidities. In recent years, new devices have been developed that allow both better identification and also better treatment of these lesions. The aim of this review is to summarize both imaging modalities and dedicated techniques and materials, thus providing a kind of compendium for the treatment approach.

Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Coronary Revascularization: Evidence from Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies.

Simple visual estimation of coronary angiography is limited by several factors that can hinder the proper classification of coronary lesions. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the most widely used tool to perform a physiological evaluation of coronary stenoses. Compared to isolated angiography, FFR has been demonstrated to be more effective in selecting those lesions associated with myocardial ischemia and, accordingly, impaired outcomes. At the same time, deferring coronary intervention in those lesions that do not show ischemic FFR values has proven safe and not associated with adverse events. Despite a major randomized clinical trial (RCT) and several non-randomized studies showing that FFR-guided revascularization could be superior to isolated angiography in improving clinical outcomes, subsequent RCTs have reported conflicting results. In this review, we summarize the principles behind FFR and the data currently available in the literature, highlighting the main differences between randomized and non-randomized studies that investigated this topic.

Safety and effectiveness of post percutaneous coronary intervention physiological assessment: Retrospective data from the post-revascularization optimization and physiological evaluation of intermediate lesions using fractional flow reserve registry.

Background: While the importance of invasive physiological assessment (IPA) to choose coronary lesions to be treated is ascertained, its role after PCI is less established. We evaluated feasibility and efficacy of Physiology-guided PCI in the everyday practice in a retrospective registry performed in a single high-volume and "physiology-believer" center. Materials and methods: The PROPHET-FFR study (NCT05056662) patients undergoing an IPA in 2015-2020 were retrospectively enrolled in three groups: Control group comprising patients for whom PCI was deferred based on a IPA; Angiography-Guided PCI group comprising patients undergoing PCI based on an IPA but without a post-PCI IPA; Physiology-guided PCI group comprising patients undergoing PCI based on an IPA and an IPA after PCI, followed by a physiology-guided optimization, if indicated. Optimal result was defined by an FFR value ≥ 0.90. Results: A total of 1,322 patients with 1,591 lesions were available for the analysis. 893 patients (67.5%) in Control Group, 249 patients (18.8%) in Angiography-guided PCI Group and 180 patients (13.6%) in Physiology-guided PCI group. In 89 patients a suboptimal functional result was achieved that was optimized in 22 cases leading to a "Final FFR" value of 0.90 ± 0.04 in Angiography-Guided PCI group. Procedural time, costs, and rate of complications were similar. At follow up the rate of MACEs for the Physiology-guided PCI group was similar to the Control Group (7.2% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.765) and significantly lower than the Angiography-guided PCI Group (14.9%, p < 0.001), mainly driven by a reduction in TVRs. Conclusion: "Physiology-guided PCI" is a feasible strategy with a favorable impact on mid-term prognosis. Prospective studies using a standardized IPA are warrant to confirm these data.

Physiological assessment after percutaneous coronary intervention: the hard truth.

Physiologically guided revascularization, using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave free ratio (iFR) has been demonstrated to be associated with better long-term outcomes compared to an angiographically-guided strategy, mainly avoiding inappropriate coronary stenting and its associated adverse events. On the contrary, the role of invasive physiological assessment after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is much less well established. However, a large body of evidence suggests that a relevant proportion of patients undergoing PCI with a satisfying angiographic result show instead a suboptimal functional product with a potentially negative prognostic impact. For this reason, many efforts have been focused to identify interventional strategies to physiologically optimize PCI. Measuring the functional result after as PCI, especially when performed after a physiological assessment, implies that the operator is ready to accept the hard truth of an unsatisfactory physiological result despite angiographically optimal and, consequently, to optimize the product with some additional effort. The aim of this review was to bridge this gap in knowledge by better defining the paradigm shift of invasive physiological assessment, from a simple tool for deciding whether an epicardial stenosis must be treated, to a thoroughly physiological approach to PCI with the suggestion of a practical flow chart.

Prognostic impact of FFR/contrast FFR discordance.

BACKGROUND: Contrast fractional flow reserve (cFFR) is a relatively new tool for the assessment of intermediate coronary artery stenosis and represents a reliable surrogate of FFR with the advantage of potentially simplifying functional evaluation. We aimed to compare the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing functional evaluation with both FFR and cFFR based on the results of the two indexes. METHOD AND RESULT: We retrospectively analyzed outcomes in 488 patients who underwent functional evaluation with FFR and cFFR. Patients were divided into four groups using the cutoff values of 0.80 for FFR and 0.85 for cFFR: -/- (n = 298), +/+ (n = 134), -/+(n = 31) and +/- (n = 25). All patients were treated according to FFR value. MACE rate was assessed in each group, including death, myocardial infarction and urgent target vessel revascularization (TVR). Mean follow-up time was 22 ± 15 months. Incidence of MACE at follow-up was 8.3% in FFR-/cFFR-, 14.0% in FFR+/cFFR+, 16.0% in FFR-/cFFR+ and 8.0% in FFR+/cFFR- without a significant difference amongst the 4 groups (p = 0.2). Nevertheless, a significant difference in the rate of TVR comparing FFR-/cFFR- (n = 17) and FFR-/cFFR+ (n = 5) was found at 24 months (5.7% vs 16.0%; p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: cFFR is accurate in predicting FFR and consequently reliable in guiding coronary revascularization. In the rare case of discordance, while FFR+/cFFR- patients show a prognosis similar to FFR-/cFFR- patients, FFR-/cFFR+ patients show a prognosis similar to FFR+/cFFR+ patients.

Fractional Flow Reserve or Optical Coherence Tomography to Guide Management of Angiographically Intermediate Coronary Stenosis: A Single-Center Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare optical coherence tomographic (OCT) guidance and fractional flow reserve (FFR) guidance in patients with angiographically intermediate coronary lesions (AICLs) in a single-center, prospective, 1:1 randomized trial. BACKGROUND: FFR and OCT imaging may help both in the assessment of AICLs and in percutaneous coronary intervention optimization. METHODS: Patients with AICLs were randomized to FFR or OCT imaging. In the FFR arm, PCI was performed if FFR was ≤0.80. In the OCT imaging arm, PCI was performed if area stenosis was ≥75% or 50% to 75% with minimal luminal area <2.5 mm2 or plaque rupture. Angina (evaluated using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire), major adverse cardiac events, and cost were assessed at the end of follow-up. The pre-defined primary endpoint was the composite of major adverse cardiac events or significant angina (defined as Seattle Angina Questionnaire frequency scale score <90) at 13 months. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients (with 446 AICLs) were enrolled (176 randomized to FFR and 174 to OCT imaging). The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events or significant angina at 13 months occurred in 14.8% of patients in the FFR arm and in 8.0% in the OCT imaging arm (p = 0.048). This result was driven by a statistically nonsignificant lower occurrence of all primary endpoint components. Up to 13 months, the rate of medically managed patients was significantly higher (p < 0.001) and total cost significantly lower (p < 0.001) with FFR in comparison with OCT imaging. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AICLs, OCT guidance is associated with lower occurrence of the composite of major adverse cardiac events or significant angina. FFR guidance is associated with a higher rate of medical management and lower costs. FFR or OCT Guidance to Revascularize Intermediate Coronary Stenosis Using Angioplasty [FORZA]; NCT01824030).

Prospective Randomized Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Optical Coherence Tomography to Guide Revascularization of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses: One-Month Results.

Background Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) may help both in assessment and in percutaneous coronary intervention optimization of angiographically intermediate coronary lesions. We designed a prospective trial comparing the clinical and economic outcomes associated with FFR or OCT in angiographically intermediate coronary lesions. Methods and Results Three hundred fifty patients with angiographically intermediate coronary lesions (n=446) were randomized to FFR or OCT guidance. In the FFR arm, percutaneous coronary intervention was performed if FFR was ≤0.80 aiming for a postprocedure FFR >0.90. In the OCT arm, percutaneous coronary intervention was performed if percentage of area stenosis was ≥75% or 50% to 75% with minimal lumen area <2.5 mm2 or plaque ulceration. Costs, angina frequency, and major adverse cardiac events were assessed at 1 month and at 13 months. We present early data at 1 month consistent with a prespecified analysis of secondary end points. Patients randomized to FFR, as compared with OCT, were significantly more commonly managed with medical therapy alone (67.7% versus 41.1%; P<0.001), required less contrast media (245±137 versus 280±129 mL; P=0.004), and exhibited a lower occurrence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (1.7% versus 8.6%; P=0.034). At 1 month, in comparison to FFR, OCT was associated with increased total costs (2831±1288 versus 4292±3844 euros/patient; P<0.001) whereas occurrence of major adverse cardiac events or significant angina was similar. Conclusions In patients with angiographically intermediate coronary lesions, a functional guidance by FFR, as compared with OCT, increased the rate of patients treated with medical therapy alone. This translated into a significant reduction in administered contrast, contrast-induced acute kidney injury, and total costs at 1 month with FFR. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrialsgov. Unique identifier: NCT01824030.

The Influence of Aortic Valve Obstruction on the Hyperemic Intracoronary Physiology: Difference Between Resting Pd/Pa and FFR in Aortic Stenosis.

The reliability of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in aortic stenosis (AS) has been questioned because of the uncertain response to vasodilators. A retrospective multicenter cohort of 114 AS patients who underwent coronary physiology assessment was compared with 154 controls before and after propensity matching adjustment. The difference between resting distal coronary vs aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) and FFR (ΔPd/Pa-FFR) was tested against the severity of AS. ΔPd/Pa-FFR was not influenced by the severity of AS in terms of aortic valve area (r = - 0.02, p = 0.83) and gradient (r = - 0.05, p = 0.64) or by the left ventricle hypertrophy (r = - 0.03, p = 0.88). Conversely, ΔPd/Pa-FFR was influenced by the presence of diabetes (r = - 0.24, p = 0.005), peripheral vascular disease (r = - 0.16, p = 0.047), and chronic kidney disease (r = - 0.19, p = 0.03). No significant difference was observed in the ΔPd/Pa-FFR between patients with AS and matched controls. Further studies are warranted to validate the FFR-guided revascularization in patients with AS.

Fractional flow reserve in acute coronary syndromes and in stable ischemic heart disease: clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease (SIHD) is universally accepted, while in Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS) is less established. Aims of this retrospective study were: to compare in patients undergoing FFR assessment the prognostic impact of ACS vs SIHD, to evaluate the clinical relevance of the modality of utilization and timing of FFR assessment and to assess the different outcomes associated with an FFR> or ≤0.80. METHODS: Major cardiac adverse events were assessed at a follow up of 16.4 ±â€¯10.5 months in 543 patients with SIHD and 231 with ACS needing functional evaluation. FFR was used for lesions of ambiguous significance in the absence of a clear culprit vessel (first intention, FI) and for incidental lesions in the presence of a clear culprit vessel (second intention, SI). The decision to perform FFR and the identification of the stenosis needing functional assessment were left to the operator's discretion. Revascularization was performed when FFR was ≤0.80. RESULTS: SIHD and ACS patients were not significantly different for principal clinical characteristics. ACS patients had significantly more events than SIHD, due to an excess of death and myocardial infarction. This was confirmed when FFR was used as FI, in particular if FFR was >0.80. On the contrary, when FFR was used as SI, event rates were similar between ACS and SIHD patients, regardless of FFR value. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that using FFR the risk of recurrent events in ACS is significantly higher than in SIHD. This different outcome is confined to those patients in whom FFR is utilized for lesions of ambiguous significance in the absence of a clear culprit vessel.

The Multi-center Evaluation of the Accuracy of the Contrast MEdium INduced Pd/Pa RaTiO in Predicting FFR (MEMENTO-FFR) Study.

AIMS: Adenosine administration is needed for the achievement of maximal hyperaemia fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment. The objective was to test the accuracy of Pd/Pa ratio registered during submaximal hyperaemia induced by non-ionic contrast medium (contrast FFR [cFFR]) in predicting FFR and comparing it to the performance of resting Pd/Pa in a collaborative registry of 926 patients enrolled in 10 hospitals from four European countries (Italy, Spain, France and Portugal). METHODS AND RESULTS: Resting Pd/Pa, cFFR and FFR were measured in 1,026 coronary stenoses functionally evaluated using commercially available pressure wires. cFFR was obtained after intracoronary injection of contrast medium, while FFR was measured after administration of adenosine. Resting Pd/Pa and cFFR were significantly higher than FFR (0.93±0.05 vs. 0.87±0.08 vs. 0.84±0.08, p<0.001). A strong correlation and a close agreement at Bland-Altman analysis between cFFR and FFR were observed (r=0.90, p<0.001 and 95% CI of disagreement: from -0.042 to 0.11). ROC curve analysis showed an excellent accuracy (89%) of the cFFR cut-off of ≤0.85 in predicting an FFR value ≤0.80 (AUC 0.95 [95% CI: 0.94-0.96]), significantly better than that observed using resting Pd/Pa (AUC: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.91; p<0.001). A cFFR/FFR hybrid approach showed a significantly lower number of lesions requiring adenosine than a resting Pd/Pa/FFR hybrid approach (22% vs. 44%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: cFFR is accurate in predicting the functional significance of coronary stenosis. This could allow limiting the use of adenosine to obtain FFR to a minority of stenoses with considerable savings of time and costs.