Cutoff FFR Values, What to Do in the “Grey Zone”

Original Title: Significance of Intermediate Values of Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease. Reference: Julien Adjedj et al. Circulation. 2016 Jan 5. Epub ahead of print.

The fractional flow reserve (FFR) value of 0.75 has been validated against tests for inducible ischemia, whereas the value 0.80 has been widely accepted to guide the clinical practice. All the same, there is a “grey zone” between 0.76 and 0.85 where deciding for one of the two treatment strategies over the other remains arguable.

The study included all patients with single segment disease and an FFR value within the grey area (0.70 – 0.75 and 0.81 – 0.85) between 1997 and 2013. Primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, infarction, and any revascularization) within a 5 year follow up.
During this period, 17380 FFR measurements were carried out; 1459 were found in this grey zone and were analyzed. 449 of these were treated with revascularization and 1010 with medical treatment.

In the grey zone, MACE rate was similar between the medical treatment and revascularization groups (13.9% vs. 11.2% respectively; p=0.3). There was a strong trend towards higher death and infarction rates (9.4 vs. 4.8; p=0.06) and higher all cause death rate (7.5 vs. 3.2; p=0.059) in the medical treatment group.

In patients receiving medical treatment, there was a progressive increase in MACE as FFR decreased (de 0.85 a 0.70) especially for proximal lesions; however, patients receiving revascularization did not show this gradient, but a similar MACE rate in all value strata.

Conclusion
FFR in the “grey zone” still has great prognosis value, especially when it comes to proximal lesions. These data confirm the FFR cutoff value ≤ 0.80 is valid to guide our clinical practice.

More articles by this author

Coronary Perforations and Use of Covered Stents: Safe and Effective Long-Term Strategy?

Coronary perforations remain one of the most serious complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially in cases of Ellis ruptures type III. In these...

Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Intravascular Imaging-Guided PCI vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Multiple randomized clinical trials have demonstrated superior outcomes with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with left main...

AHA 2025 | OCEAN Study: Anticoagulation vs. Antiplatelet Therapy After Successful Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

After a successful atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, the need to maintain long-term anticoagulation (AC) remains uncertain, especially considering the very low residual embolic risk...

AHA 2025 | VESALIUS-CV: Evolocumab in High-Cardiovascular-Risk Patients Without Prior MI or Stroke

LDL cholesterol is a well-established factor for cardiovascular disease. Therapy with PCSK9 inhibitors, including evolocumab, has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Coronary Perforations and Use of Covered Stents: Safe and Effective Long-Term Strategy?

Coronary perforations remain one of the most serious complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially in cases of Ellis ruptures type III. In these...

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....