Deferring Lesions by FFR in ACS: Yes or No?

Deferring Lesions by FFR in ACSDeferring treatment through angioplasty in non-ischemic lesions by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with excellent long-term prognosis in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease.

 

FFR is beginning to be used for clinical decision-making in patients with acute coronary syndromes, and its long-term effect on stable chronic patients has not been established.

 

This study tries to determine the safety of deferring non-significant lesions by FFR in patients with acute coronary syndromes. For that purpose, the study included 206 consecutive patients with 262 intermediate lesions admitted for acute coronary syndrome and 370 patients with 528 intermediate lesions admitted for stable chronic angina in whom angioplasty was deferred on the basis of a FFR without evidence of myocardial ischemia (>0.75).

 

The primary endpoint was a composite of acute myocardial infarction and target vessel failure (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]).

 

In the entire cohort, in the long-term (3.4 ± 1.6 years), the rate of combined events was higher in the group with acute coronary syndrome than in the stable chronic group (23% vs. 11%, p <0.0001).

 

After a propensity score analysis that matched 200 patients in each group, the combined events rate is significantly higher for those with acute coronary syndrome (25% vs. 12%; p <0.0001).

 

Acute coronary syndrome patients presented a hazard ratio of 2.8 compared to stable patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9 to 4.0; p <0.0001).

 

In both the matched and unmatched cohorts, and across all FFR categories, patients with acute coronary syndrome presented higher rates of myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization compared with stable patients (p <0.05).

 

In this study, the best FFR cutoff was <0.84 for patients with acute coronary syndrome (MACE 21% vs. 36%; p = 0.007) and <0.81 for stable patients (MACE 17% vs. 9%; p = 0.01).

 

Conclusion

Deferring coronary angioplasty on the basis of non-ischemic FFR in patients presenting acute coronary syndrome is significantly associated with worse outcomes when compared to stable chronic patients.

 

This study warns about risks derived from using FFR for clinical decision-making in acute patients.

 

Original title: Long-Term Prognosis of Deferred Acute Coronary Syndrome Lesions Based on Nonischemic Fractional Flow Reserve.

Reference: Abdul Hakeem et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(11):1181-1191.

 

We value your opinion. You are more than welcome to leave your comments, thoughts, questions or suggestions here below.

More articles by this author

Pretreatment with DAPT in Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Ongoing Debate?

In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has become a fundamental pillar after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), preventing stent thrombosis and acute...

Another Blow for Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumo Counterpulsation? Randomized Study on Its Use in Chronic Heart Failure Progressing to Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a condition with extremely high mortality (around 50%). While most therapies for this pathology have been studied in CS secondary...

Radial Patency in Coronary Procedures: Is Heparin Enough or Should We Aim for Distal Transradial Access?

Transradial access is the preferred route in most coronary procedures due to its proven reduction in mortality compared to transfemoral access. However, one of...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Pretreatment with DAPT in Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Ongoing Debate?

In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has become a fundamental pillar after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), preventing stent thrombosis and acute...

Measuring Post-TAVI Gradients and Their Implications: Are Invasive and Echocardiographic Assessments Comparable?

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is considered the treatment of choice for a significant proportion of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Outcomes have improved...

Another Blow for Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumo Counterpulsation? Randomized Study on Its Use in Chronic Heart Failure Progressing to Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a condition with extremely high mortality (around 50%). While most therapies for this pathology have been studied in CS secondary...