M Marcel van 't Veer

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).

Multicenter core laboratory comparison of the instantaneous wave-free ratio and resting Pd/Pa with fractional flow reserve: the RESOLVE study.

OBJECTIVES This study sought to examine the diagnostic accuracy of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and resting distal coronary artery pressure/aortic pressure (Pd/Pa) with respect to hyperemic fractional flow reserve (FFR) in a core laboratory-based multicenter collaborative study. BACKGROUND FFR is an index of the severity of coronary stenosis that has been clinically validated in 3 prospective randomized trials. iFR and Pd/Pa are nonhyperemic pressure-derived indices of the severity of stenosis with discordant reports regarding their accuracy with respect to FFR. METHODS iFR, resting Pd/Pa, and FFR were measured in 1,768 patients from 15 clinical sites. An independent physiology core laboratory performed blinded off-line analysis of all raw data. The primary objectives were to determine specific iFR and Pd/Pa thresholds with ≥90% accuracy in predicting ischemic versus nonischemic FFR (on the basis of an FFR cut point of 0.80) and the proportion of patients falling beyond those thresholds. RESULTS Of 1,974 submitted lesions, 381 (19.3%) were excluded because of suboptimal acquisition, leaving 1,593 for final analysis. On receiver-operating characteristic analysis, the optimal iFR cut point for FFR ≤0.80 was 0.90 (C statistic: 0.81 [95% confidence interval: 0.79 to 0.83]; overall accuracy: 80.4%) and for Pd/Pa was 0.92 (C statistic: 0.82 [95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 0.84]; overall accuracy: 81.5%), with no significant difference between these resting measures. iFR and Pd/Pa had ≥90% accuracy to predict a positive or negative FFR in 64.9% (62.6% to 67.3%) and 48.3% (45.6% to 50.5%) of lesions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This comprehensive core laboratory analysis comparing iFR and Pd/Pa with FFR demonstrated an overall accuracy of ~80% for both nonhyperemic indices, which can be improved to ≥90% in a subset of lesions. Clinical outcome studies are required to determine whether the use of iFR or Pd/Pa might obviate the need for hyperemia in selected patients.

VERIFY (VERification of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve for the Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis Severity in EverydaY Practice): a multicenter study in consecutive patients.

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare fractional flow reserve (FFR) with the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in patients with coronary artery disease and also to determine whether the iFR is independent of hyperemia. BACKGROUND FFR is a validated index of coronary stenosis severity. FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves clinical outcomes compared to angiographic guidance alone. iFR has been proposed as a new index of stenosis severity that can be measured without adenosine. METHODS We conducted a prospective, multicenter, international study of 206 consecutive patients referred for PCI and a retrospective analysis of 500 archived pressure recordings. Aortic and distal coronary pressures were measured in duplicate in patients under resting conditions and during intravenous adenosine infusion at 140 μg/kg/min. RESULTS Compared to the FFR cut-off value of ≤0.80, the diagnostic accuracy of the iFR value of ≤0.80 was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 53% to 67%) for all vessels studied and 51% (95% CI: 43% to 59%) for those patients with FFR in the range of 0.60 to 0.90. iFR was significantly influenced by the induction of hyperemia: mean ± SD iFR at rest was 0.82 ± 0.16 versus 0.64 ± 0.18 with hyperemia (p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics confirmed that the diagnostic accuracy of iFR was similar to resting Pd/Pa and trans-stenotic pressure gradient and significantly inferior to hyperemic iFR. Analysis of our retrospectively acquired dataset showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS iFR correlates weakly with FFR and is not independent of hyperemia. iFR cannot be recommended for clinical decision making in patients with coronary artery disease.

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND In the Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study, fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for up to 2 years of follow-up. The aim in this study was to investigate whether the favourable clinical outcome with the FFR-guided PCI in the FAME study persisted over a 5-year follow-up. METHODS The FAME study was a multicentre trial done in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI or FFR-guided PCI. Before randomisation, stenoses requiring PCI were identified on the angiogram. Patients allocated to angiography-guided PCI had revascularisation of all identified stenoses. Patients allocated to FFR-guided PCI had FFR measurements of all stenotic arteries and PCI was done only if FFR was 0·80 or less. No one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events at 1 year, and the data for the 5-year follow-up are reported here. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00267774. FINDINGS After 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 31% of patients (154 of 496) in the angiography-guided group versus 28% (143 of 509 patients) in the FFR-guided group (relative risk 0·91, 95% CI 0·75-1·10; p=0·31). The number of stents placed per patient was significantly higher in the angiography-guided group than in the FFR-guided group (mean 2·7 [SD 1·2] vs 1·9 [1·3], p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION The results confirm the long-term safety of FFR-guided PCI in patients with multivessel disease. A strategy of FFR-guided PCI resulted in a significant decrease of major adverse cardiac events for up to 2 years after the index procedure. From 2 years to 5 years, the risks for both groups developed similarly. This clinical outcome in the FFR-guided group was achieved with a lower number of stented arteries and less resource use. These results indicate that FFR guidance of multivessel PCI should be the standard of care in most patients. FUNDING St Jude Medical, Friends of the Heart Foundation, and Medtronic.

Fractional flow reserve in unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction experience from the FAME (Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to study whether there is a difference in benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR) guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in multivessel coronary disease in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), compared with stable angina (SA). BACKGROUND The use of FFR to guide PCI has been well established for patients with SA. Its use in patients with UA or NSTEMI has not been investigated prospectively. METHODS In the FAME (Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study 1,005 patients with multivessel disease amenable to PCI were included and randomized to either angiography-guided PCI of all lesions ≥50% or FFR-guided PCI of lesions with an FFR ≤0.80. Patients admitted for UA or NSTEMI with positive troponin but total creatine kinase <1,000 U/l were eligible for inclusion. We determined 2-year major adverse cardiac event rates of these patients and compared it with stable patients. RESULTS Of 1,005 patients, 328 had UA or NSTEMI. There was no evidence for heterogeneity among the subgroups for any of the outcome variables (all p values >0.05). Using FFR to guide PCI resulted in similar risk reductions of major adverse cardiac events and its components in patients with UA or NSTEMI, compared with patients with SA (absolute risk reduction of 5.1% vs. 3.7%, respectively, p = 0.92). In patients with UA or NSTEMI, the number of stents was reduced without increase in hospital stay or procedure time and with less contrast use, in similarity to stable patients. CONCLUSIONS The benefit of using FFR to guide PCI in multivessel disease does not differ between patients with UA or NSTEMI, compared with patients with SA.

Does the instantaneous wave-free ratio approximate the fractional flow reserve?

OBJECTIVES This study sought to examine the clinical performance of and theoretical basis for the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) approximation to the fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND Recent work has proposed iFR as a vasodilation-free alternative to FFR for making mechanical revascularization decisions. Its fundamental basis is the assumption that diastolic resting myocardial resistance equals mean hyperemic resistance. METHODS Pressure-only and combined pressure-flow clinical data from several centers were studied both empirically and by using pressure-flow physiology. A Monte Carlo simulation was performed by repeatedly selecting random parameters as if drawing from a cohort of hypothetical patients, using the reported ranges of these physiologic variables. RESULTS We aggregated observations of 1,129 patients, including 120 with combined pressure-flow data. Separately, we performed 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Clinical data showed that iFR was +0.09 higher than FFR on average, with ±0.17 limits of agreement. Diastolic resting resistance was 2.5 ± 1.0 times higher than mean hyperemic resistance in patients. Without invoking wave mechanics, classic pressure-flow physiology explained clinical observations well, with a coefficient of determination of >0.9. Nearly identical scatter of iFR versus FFR was seen between simulation and patient observations, thereby supporting our model. CONCLUSIONS iFR provides both a biased estimate of FFR, on average, and an uncertain estimate of FFR in individual cases. Diastolic resting myocardial resistance does not equal mean hyperemic resistance, thereby contravening the most basic condition on which iFR depends. Fundamental relationships of coronary pressure and flow explain the iFR approximation without invoking wave mechanics.

The impact of downstream coronary stenoses on fractional flow reserve assessment of intermediate left main disease

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the validity of measuring fractional flow reserve (FFR) of the left main (LM) coronary artery in the setting of concomitant left anterior descending (LAD) or left circumflex (LCX) stenoses. BACKGROUND The theoretical impact of a stenosis in the LAD on the FFR assessment of intermediate LM disease with the pressure wire in an unobstructed LCX is currently unknown. METHODS A previously validated in vitro model of the coronary circulation was used to create a fixed intermediate stenosis of the LM and a variable downstream LAD or LCX stenosis. The true LM FFR (FFR(LM true)), with no concomitant downstream disease, was compared to the apparent LM FFR (FFR(LM apparent)), with concomitant downstream disease measured with different degrees of LAD or LCX disease. Additionally, an equation based on a resistors model was derived to predict the effect of downstream stenosis on LM FFR (FFR(LM predicted)). RESULTS In the setting of isolated moderate LM disease (FFR 0.72 ± 0.08), mild to moderate proximal LAD or LCX lesions did not significantly affect LM FFR. Lesions with a composite FFR (LM + downstream disease) ≥0.65 resulted in an FFR(LM apparent) that was not significantly different from FFR(LM true) (0.76 ± 0.06 vs. 0.76 ± 0.05, p = 0.124). Our equation for FFR(LM predicted) accurately modeled the effects of concomitant disease (r = 0.95, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that in the presence of proximal mild to moderate LAD or LCX disease, LM FFR can be reliably measured with the pressure wire placed in the uninvolved epicardial artery.

Biomechanical properties of abdominal aortic aneurysms assessed by simultaneously measured pressure and volume changes in humans.

BACKGROUND Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) are at risk of rupture when the internal load (blood pressure) exceeds the aneurysm wall strength. Generally, the maximal diameter of the aneurysm is used as a predictor of rupture; however, biomechanical properties may be a better predictor than the maximal diameter. Compliance and distensibility are two biomechanical properties that can be determined from the pressure-volume relationship of the aneurysm. This study determined the compliance and distensibility of the AAA by simultaneous instantaneous pressure and volume measurements; as a secondary goal, the influence of direct and indirect pressure measurements was compared. METHODS Ten men (aged 73.6 +/- 6.4 years) with an infrarenal AAA were studied. Three-dimensional balanced turbo field echo (3D B-TFE) images were acquired with noncontrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the aortic region proximal to the renal arteries until just beyond the bifurcation. Volume changes were extracted from the electrocardiogram-triggered 3D B-TFE MRI images using dedicated prototype software. Pressure was measured simultaneously within the AAA using a fluid-filled pigtail catheter. Noninvasive brachial cuff measurements were also acquired before and after the imaging sequence simultaneously with the invasive pressure measurement to investigate agreement between the techniques. Compliance was calculated as the slope of the best linear fit through the pressure volume data points. Distensibility was calculated by dividing the compliance by the diastolic aneurysmal volume. Youngs moduli were estimated from the compliance data. RESULTS The AAA maximal diameter was 5.8 +/- 0.6 cm. A strong linear relation between the pressure and volume data was found. Distensibility was 1.8 +/- 0.7 x 10(-3) kPa(-1). Average compliance was 0.31 +/- 0.15 mL/kPa with accompanying estimates for Youngs moduli of 9.0 +/- 2.5 MPa. Brachial cuff measurements demonstrated an underestimation of 5% for systolic (P < .001) and an overestimation of 12% for diastolic blood pressure (P < .001) compared with the pressure measured within the aneurysm. CONCLUSION Distensibility and compliance of the wall of the aneurysm were determined in humans by simultaneous intra-aneurysmal pressure and volume measurements. A strong linear relationship existed between the intra-aneurysmal pressure and the volume change of the AAA. Brachial cuff measurements were significantly different compared with invasive intra-aneurysmal measurements. Consequently, no absolute distensibility values can be determined noninvasively. However, because of a constant and predictable difference between directly and indirectly derived blood pressures, MRI-based monitoring of aneurysmal distensibility may serve the online rupture risk during follow-up of aneurysms.