de la Torre Hernandez Jose M, Lopez-Palop Ramon, Garcia Camarero Tamara, Carrillo Saez Pilar, Martin Gorria Gonzalo, Frutos Garcia Araceli, Arnaez Corada Blanca, Cordero Fort Alberto, Gomez Delgado Jenny M, Agudo Quilez Pilar, Lee Dae-Hyun, Rodriguez Irene Mateo, Sainz Laso Fermin, Khashaba Ahmed, Miralles Arques Sandra, Zueco Gil Javier
Unidad de Cardiologia Intervencionista, Cardiologia Valdecilla, Hospital Universitario Marques de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain.
EuroIntervention. 2013 Nov;9(7):824-30. doi: 10.4244/EIJV9I7A136.
Assessment of intermediate coronary lesions can be done with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). There are no randomised trials and only a small registry from one centre is available but this is subject to important bias. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of an FFR strategy compared with an IVUS strategy for intermediate lesion assessment.
We compared the outcome of patients assessed with FFR and IVUS in two centres with a differential approach. After propensity score matching 400 pairs of patients were included. Revascularisation was done when FFR was <0.75 or minimum lumen area was <4 mm2 in vessels >3 mm, and <3.5 mm2 in vessels 2.5-3 mm, along with plaque burden >50%. After FFR and IVUS, 72% and 51.2% of lesions, respectively, were left untreated (p<0.001). At one and two years no significant differences in MACE-free survival were observed in overall groups (97.7% at one year and 93.1% at two years in the FFR group and 97.7% at one year and 95.6% at two years in the IVUS group; p=0.35) and among those with deferred intervention (97.9% at one year and 94.2% at two years in the FFR group and 96.5% at one year and 93.6% at two years in the IVUS group; p=0.7).
IVUS and FFR may be safely used to defer revascularisation of intermediate lesions. IVUS induces a higher degree of revascularisation but much lower than previously reported and does not affect the clinical outcome.
