Keith G. Oldroyd

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary angiography is the standard method for guiding the placement of the stent. It is unclear whether routine measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR; the ratio of maximal blood flow in a stenotic artery to normal maximal flow), in addition to angiography, improves outcomes. METHODS In 20 medical centers in the United States and Europe, we randomly assigned 1005 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease to undergo PCI with implantation of drug-eluting stents guided by angiography alone or guided by FFR measurements in addition to angiography. Before randomization, lesions requiring PCI were identified on the basis of their angiographic appearance. Patients assigned to angiography-guided PCI underwent stenting of all indicated lesions, whereas those assigned to FFR-guided PCI underwent stenting of indicated lesions only if the FFR was 0.80 or less. The primary end point was the rate of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS The mean (+/-SD) number of indicated lesions per patient was 2.7+/-0.9 in the angiography group and 2.8+/-1.0 in the FFR group (P=0.34). The number of stents used per patient was 2.7+/-1.2 and 1.9+/-1.3, respectively (P<0.001). The 1-year event rate was 18.3% (91 patients) in the angiography group and 13.2% (67 patients) in the FFR group (P=0.02). Seventy-eight percent of the patients in the angiography group were free from angina at 1 year, as compared with 81% of patients in the FFR group (P=0.20). CONCLUSIONS Routine measurement of FFR in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who are undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents significantly reduces the rate of the composite end point of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00267774.)

Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND The preferred initial treatment for patients with stable coronary artery disease is the best available medical therapy. We hypothesized that in patients with functionally significant stenoses, as determined by measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus the best available medical therapy would be superior to the best available medical therapy alone. METHODS In patients with stable coronary artery disease for whom PCI was being considered, we assessed all stenoses by measuring FFR. Patients in whom at least one stenosis was functionally significant (FFR, ≤0.80) were randomly assigned to FFR-guided PCI plus the best available medical therapy (PCI group) or the best available medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group). Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 were entered into a registry and received the best available medical therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization. RESULTS Recruitment was halted prematurely after enrollment of 1220 patients (888 who underwent randomization and 332 enrolled in the registry) because of a significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients who had a primary end-point event: 4.3% in the PCI group and 12.7% in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio with PCI, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.53; P<0.001). The difference was driven by a lower rate of urgent revascularization in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (1.6% vs. 11.1%; hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30; P<0.001); in particular, in the PCI group, fewer urgent revascularizations were triggered by a myocardial infarction or evidence of ischemia on electrocardiography (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.43; P<0.001). Among patients in the registry, 3.0% had a primary end-point event. CONCLUSIONS In patients with stable coronary artery disease and functionally significant stenoses, FFR-guided PCI plus the best available medical therapy, as compared with the best available medical therapy alone, decreased the need for urgent revascularization. In patients without ischemia, the outcome appeared to be favorable with the best available medical therapy alone. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01132495.).

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to investigate the 2-year outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND In patients with multivessel CAD undergoing PCI, coronary angiography is the standard method for guiding stent placement. The FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study showed that routine FFR in addition to angiography improves outcomes of PCI at 1 year. It is unknown if these favorable results are maintained at 2 years of follow-up. METHODS At 20 U.S. and European medical centers, 1,005 patients with multivessel CAD were randomly assigned to PCI with drug-eluting stents guided by angiography alone or guided by FFR measurements. Before randomization, lesions requiring PCI were identified based on their angiographic appearance. Patients randomized to angiography-guided PCI underwent stenting of all indicated lesions, whereas those randomized to FFR-guided PCI underwent stenting of indicated lesions only if the FFR was <or=0.80. RESULTS The number of indicated lesions was 2.7+/-0.9 in the angiography-guided group and 2.8+/-1.0 in the FFR-guided group (p=0.34). The number of stents used was 2.7+/-1.2 and 1.9+/-1.3, respectively (p<0.001). The 2-year rates of mortality or myocardial infarction were 12.9% in the angiography-guided group and 8.4% in the FFR-guided group (p=0.02). Rates of PCI or coronary artery bypass surgery were 12.7% and 10.6%, respectively (p=0.30). Combined rates of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and revascularization were 22.4% and 17.9%, respectively (p=0.08). For lesions deferred on the basis of FFR>0.80, the rate of myocardial infarction was 0.2% and the rate of revascularization was 3.2 % after 2 years. CONCLUSIONS Routine measurement of FFR in patients with multivessel CAD undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents significantly reduces mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years when compared with standard angiography-guided PCI. (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation [FAME]; NCT00267774).

Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between angiographic and functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation) study. BACKGROUND It can be difficult to determine on the coronary angiogram which lesions cause ischemia. Revascularization of coronary stenoses that induce ischemia improves a patients functional status and outcome. For stenoses that do not induce ischemia, however, the benefit of revascularization is less clear. METHODS In the FAME study, routine measurement of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) was compared with angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The use of the FFR in addition to angiography significantly reduced the rate of all major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. Of the 1,414 lesions (509 patients) in the FFR-guided arm of the FAME study, 1,329 were successfully assessed by the FFR and are included in this analysis. RESULTS Before FFR measurement, these lesions were categorized into 50% to 70% (47% of all lesions), 71% to 90% (39% of all lesions), and 91% to 99% (15% of all lesions) diameter stenosis by visual assessment. In the category 50% to 70% stenosis, 35% were functionally significant (FFR <or=0.80) and 65% were not (FFR >0.80). In the category 71% to 90% stenosis, 80% were functionally significant and 20% were not. In the category of subtotal stenoses, 96% were functionally significant. Of all 509 patients with angiographically defined multivessel disease, only 235 (46%) had functional multivessel disease (>or=2 coronary arteries with an FFR <or=0.80). CONCLUSIONS Angiography is inaccurate in assessing the functional significance of a coronary stenosis when compared with the FFR, not only in the 50% to 70% category but also in the 70% to 90% angiographic severity category.

Clinical ResearchInterventional CardiologyFractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: 2-Year Follow-Up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) Study

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to investigate the 2-year outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND In patients with multivessel CAD undergoing PCI, coronary angiography is the standard method for guiding stent placement. The FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study showed that routine FFR in addition to angiography improves outcomes of PCI at 1 year. It is unknown if these favorable results are maintained at 2 years of follow-up. METHODS At 20 U.S. and European medical centers, 1,005 patients with multivessel CAD were randomly assigned to PCI with drug-eluting stents guided by angiography alone or guided by FFR measurements. Before randomization, lesions requiring PCI were identified based on their angiographic appearance. Patients randomized to angiography-guided PCI underwent stenting of all indicated lesions, whereas those randomized to FFR-guided PCI underwent stenting of indicated lesions only if the FFR was <or=0.80. RESULTS The number of indicated lesions was 2.7+/-0.9 in the angiography-guided group and 2.8+/-1.0 in the FFR-guided group (p=0.34). The number of stents used was 2.7+/-1.2 and 1.9+/-1.3, respectively (p<0.001). The 2-year rates of mortality or myocardial infarction were 12.9% in the angiography-guided group and 8.4% in the FFR-guided group (p=0.02). Rates of PCI or coronary artery bypass surgery were 12.7% and 10.6%, respectively (p=0.30). Combined rates of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and revascularization were 22.4% and 17.9%, respectively (p=0.08). For lesions deferred on the basis of FFR>0.80, the rate of myocardial infarction was 0.2% and the rate of revascularization was 3.2 % after 2 years. CONCLUSIONS Routine measurement of FFR in patients with multivessel CAD undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents significantly reduces mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years when compared with standard angiography-guided PCI. (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation [FAME]; NCT00267774).

Randomized Trial of Preventive Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND In acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat the artery responsible for the infarct (infarct, or culprit, artery) improves prognosis. The value of PCI in noninfarct coronary arteries with major stenoses (preventive PCI) is unknown. METHODS From 2008 through 2013, at five centers in the United Kingdom, we enrolled 465 patients with acute STEMI (including 3 patients with left bundle-branch block) who were undergoing infarct-artery PCI and randomly assigned them to either preventive PCI (234 patients) or no preventive PCI (231 patients). Subsequent PCI for angina was recommended only for refractory angina with objective evidence of ischemia. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiac causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or refractory angina. An intention-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS By January 2013, the results were considered conclusive by the data and safety monitoring committee, which recommended that the trial be stopped early. During a mean follow-up of 23 months, the primary outcome occurred in 21 patients assigned to preventive PCI and in 53 patients assigned to no preventive PCI (infarct-artery-only PCI), which translated into rates of 9 events per 100 patients and 23 per 100, respectively (hazard ratio in the preventive-PCI group, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.58; P<0.001). Hazard ratios for the three components of the primary outcome were 0.34 (95% CI, 0.11 to 1.08) for death from cardiac causes, 0.32 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.75) for nonfatal myocardial infarction, and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.69) for refractory angina. CONCLUSIONS In patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing infarct-artery PCI, preventive PCI in noninfarct coronary arteries with major stenoses significantly reduced the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, as compared with PCI limited to the infarct artery. (Funded by Barts and the London Charity; PRAMI Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN73028481.).

Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI for Stable Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND We hypothesized that in patients with stable coronary artery disease and stenosis, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed on the basis of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) would be superior to medical therapy. METHODS In 1220 patients with stable coronary artery disease, we assessed the FFR in all stenoses that were visible on angiography. Patients who had at least one stenosis with an FFR of 0.80 or less were randomly assigned to undergo FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy or to receive medical therapy alone. Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 received medical therapy alone and were included in a registry. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization within 2 years. RESULTS The rate of the primary end point was significantly lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (8.1% vs. 19.5%; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.57; P<0.001). This reduction was driven by a lower rate of urgent revascularization in the PCI group (4.0% vs. 16.3%; hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.38; P<0.001), with no significant between-group differences in the rates of death and myocardial infarction. Urgent revascularizations that were triggered by myocardial infarction or ischemic changes on electrocardiography were less frequent in the PCI group (3.4% vs. 7.0%, P=0.01). In a landmark analysis, the rate of death or myocardial infarction from 8 days to 2 years was lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (4.6% vs. 8.0%, P=0.04). Among registry patients, the rate of the primary end point was 9.0% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS In patients with stable coronary artery disease, FFR-guided PCI, as compared with medical therapy alone, improved the outcome. Patients without ischemia had a favorable outcome with medical therapy alone. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; FAME 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01132495.).

Smoke-free Legislation and Hospitalizations for Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND Previous studies have suggested a reduction in the total number of hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome after the enactment of legislation banning smoking in public places. However, it is unknown whether the reduction in admissions involved nonsmokers, smokers, or both. METHODS Since the end of March 2006, smoking has been prohibited by law in all enclosed public places throughout Scotland. We collected information prospectively on smoking status and exposure to secondhand smoke based on questionnaires and biochemical findings from all patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome to nine Scottish hospitals during the 10-month period preceding the passage of the legislation and during the same period the next year. These hospitals accounted for 64% of admissions for acute coronary syndrome in Scotland, which has a population of 5.1 million. RESULTS Overall, the number of admissions for acute coronary syndrome decreased from 3235 to 2684--a 17% reduction (95% confidence interval, 16 to 18)--as compared with a 4% reduction in England (which has no such legislation) during the same period and a mean annual decrease of 3% (maximum decrease, 9%) in Scotland during the decade preceding the study. The reduction in the number of admissions was not due to an increase in the number of deaths of patients with acute coronary syndrome who were not admitted to the hospital; this latter number decreased by 6%. There was a 14% reduction in the number of admissions for acute coronary syndrome among smokers, a 19% reduction among former smokers, and a 21% reduction among persons who had never smoked. Persons who had never smoked reported a decrease in the weekly duration of exposure to secondhand smoke (P<0.001 by the chi-square test for trend) that was confirmed by a decrease in their geometric mean concentration of serum cotinine from 0.68 to 0.56 ng per milliliter (P<0.001 by the t-test). CONCLUSIONS The number of admissions for acute coronary syndrome decreased after the implementation of smoke-free legislation. A total of 67% of the decrease involved nonsmokers. However, fewer admissions among smokers also contributed to the overall reduction.

Randomized Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Diabetic Patients: 1-Year Results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) Trial

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting against coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with diabetes and symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND CABG is the established method of revascularization in patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease, but with advances in PCI, there is uncertainty whether CABG remains the preferred method of revascularization. METHODS The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke, and the main secondary outcome included the addition of repeat revascularization to the primary outcome events. A total of 510 diabetic patients with multivessel or complex single-vessel coronary disease from 24 centers were randomized to PCI plus stenting (and routine abciximab) or CABG. The primary comparison used a noninferiority method with the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) not to exceed 1.3 to declare PCI noninferior. Bare-metal stents were used initially, but a switch to Cypher (sirolimus drug-eluting) stents (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Bridgewater, New Jersey) was made when these became available. RESULTS At 1 year of follow-up, the composite rate of death, MI, and stroke was 10.5% in the CABG group and 13.0% in the PCI group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.75 to 2.09; p=0.39), all-cause mortality rates were 3.2% and 3.2%, and the rates of death, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization were 11.3% and 19.3% (HR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.11 to 2.82; p=0.02), respectively. When the patients who underwent CABG were compared with the subset of patients who received drug-eluting stents (69% of patients), the primary outcome rates were 12.4% and 11.6% (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.71; p=0.82), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial is the first randomized trial of coronary revascularization in diabetic patients, but the 1-year results did not show that PCI is noninferior to CABG. However, the CARDia trial did show that multivessel PCI is feasible in patients with diabetes, but longer-term follow-up and data from other trials will be needed to provide a more precise comparison of the efficacy of these 2 revascularization strategies. (The Coronary Artery Revascularisation in Diabetes trial; ISRCTN19872154).

Randomized Trial of Simple Versus Complex Drug-Eluting Stenting for Bifurcation Lesions The British Bifurcation Coronary Study: Old, New, and Evolving Strategies

Background The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques. Methods and Results Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64 10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations ( 50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simplegroup (n 250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n 250), 89% of culotte (n 75) and 72% of crush (n 169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P 0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P 0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P 0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Conclusions When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases.Background— The optimal strategy for treating coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be superior to systematic 2-stent strategies. Drug-eluting stents, however, have low rates of restenosis and might offer improved outcomes with complex stenting techniques. Methods and Results— Patients with significant coronary bifurcation lesions were randomized to either a simple or complex stenting strategy with drug-eluting stents. In the simple strategy, the main vessel was stented, followed by optional kissing balloon dilatation/T-stent. In the complex strategy, both vessels were systematically stented (culotte or crush techniques) with mandatory kissing balloon dilatation. Five hundred patients 64±10 years old were randomized; 77% were male. Eighty-two percent of lesions were true bifurcations (>50% narrowing in both vessels). In the simple group (n=250), 66 patients (26%) had kissing balloons in addition to main-vessel stenting, and 7 (3%) had T stenting. In the complex group (n=250), 89% of culotte (n=75) and 72% of crush (n=169) cases were completed successfully with final kissing balloon inflations. The primary end point (a composite at 9 months of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel failure) occurred in 8.0% of the simple group versus 15.2% of the complex group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 3.47, P=0.009). Myocardial infarction occurred in 3.6% versus 11.2%, respectively (P=0.001), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 2.0% versus 8.0% (P=0.002), respectively. Procedure duration and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Conclusions— When coronary bifurcation lesions are treated, a systematic 2-stent technique results in higher rates of in-hospital and 9-month major adverse cardiovascular events. This difference is largely driven by periprocedural myocardial infarction. Procedure duration is longer, and x-ray dose is higher. The provisional technique should remain the preferred strategy in the majority of cases. Clinical Trial Registration Information— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00351260.