AHA 2020 | The More Operators “Listen” to FFR, the Lower the Risk

When operators decide to proceed with PCI despite a negative FFR (fairly frequent in the daily practice) outcomes at 5 years are far worse. This information comes from a large Canadian register presented at AHA 2020 Scientific Sessions, simultaneously published in JAMA.

AHA 2020 | El riesgo aumenta cuando los operadores no “escuchan” al FFR

PCI to a non-ischemic lesion results in increased events risk at long term, just as treating an ischemic lesion with medical treatment would. 

Both the American and the European guidelines have emphasized the idea of using FFR to guide revascularization in intermediate lesions. Even though these recommendations have clearly been established, they are hardly followed in the daily practice. 

In the present study, researchers speculated with the fact that PCI to severe lesions with negative FFR would not present a major problem. Eventually, it would only increase healthcare costs. However, they observed increased events rate. 

The registry included 9106 patients (mean age 65) undergoing FFR in one vessel only between 2013 and 2018. It excluded STEMI or left main patients. 


Read also: AHA 2020 | AFFIRM-AHF: Ferric Carboxymaltose and Fewer Hospitalizations for Cardiac Failure.


Globally, 30% of patients showed ischemic lesions (FFR ≤ 0.8) and 70% non-ischemic lesions.

In the ischemic lesion group, 75% of patients received PCI and 25% medical treatment, despite a positive FFR. In this group, PCI reduced the primary end point of death, MI, unstable angina or urgent revascularization (31.5% vs 39.1%; HR 0.77; CI 95% 0.63-0.94).

On the other end, 87.4% of patients with non-ischemic lesions received medical treatment and 12.6% received PCI, despite a negative FFR. This unnecessary intervention was associated with a significant increase in events at 5 years (33.3% vs 24.4%; HR 1.37; CI 95% 1.14-1.65).


Read also: AHA 2020 | Statins: Confirmed Benefits for the Elderly.


What is interesting about this study is that FFR was measured, but then it was decided against its result. More often than not, interventionists in the daily practice often decide not to measure FFR because they rely on angiographies.  

Taking the time to measure FFR and then ignoring its results strikes as odd, but there must be a reason behind this decision. 

FFR is not binary and there are multiple factors an operator must take into account when deciding for or against revascularization. 

FFR

Original Title: Association Between Adherence to Fractional Flow Reserve Treatment Thresholds and Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease.

Reference: Maneesh Sud et al. JAMA. Published online November 13, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.22708 y presentado en el congreso AHA 2020.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

More articles by this author

TCT 2024 | FAVOR III EUROPA

The study FAVOR III EUROPA, a randomized trial, included 2,000 patients with chronic coronary syndrome, or stabilized acute coronary syndrome, and intermediate lesions. 1,008...

TCT 2024 – ECLIPSE: Randomized Study of Orbital Atherectomy vs Conventional PCI in Severely Calcified Lesions

Coronary calcification is associated with stent under-expansion and increased risk of both early and late adverse events. Atherectomy is an essential tool for uncrossable...

TCT 2024 | Use of Drug-Coated Balloons for Side Branch Treatment in Provisional Stenting

In some cases, treating coronary bifurcations with provisional stenting requires side branch stenting, which may lead to suboptimal outcomes. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have emerged...

TCT 2024 | Use of Artificial Intelligence for Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease

The current approach to chest pain mainly focuses on symptom characteristics, conducting functional tests for ischemia assessment. However, several randomized clinical trials have shown...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

TCT 2024 | FAVOR III EUROPA

The study FAVOR III EUROPA, a randomized trial, included 2,000 patients with chronic coronary syndrome, or stabilized acute coronary syndrome, and intermediate lesions. 1,008...

TCT 2024 | TRISCEND II

This randomized study included 400 patients; 267 were treated with EVOQUE valve and 133 with optimal medical treatment (OMT). After one-year follow-up, there were no...

TCT 2024 – ACCESS-TAVI: Comparing Percutaneous Access Closure Strategies After TAVI

Vascular access complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain common. However, few studies compare vascular access closure methods.  Based on the CHOICE-CLOSURE and MASH...