Prasad Srinivasa, Harikrishnan S, Sanjay G, Abhilash S P, Bijulal S, Mohanan Nair Krishna Kumar, Tharakan Jaganmohan, Ajit Kumar V K
Department of Cardiology, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, India.
Department of Cardiology, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, India.
Indian Heart J. 2017 Jul-Aug;69(4):499-504. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2016.12.007. Epub 2016 Dec 29.
We undertook this study to validate the impact of FFR-guided coronary interventions among Indian patients, which is not readily available as of date. Our patients differ from their western counterparts, both in terms of risk profile (younger, more metabolic syndrome, lipid rich diet) as well as their coronary size.
We retrospectively evaluated 282 patients with intermediate stenosis in their coronary arteries, who underwent FFR to assess the functional severity of the lesion. There were 3 groups: Group 1-FFR>0.8 and kept on medical follow-up; Group 2-FFR≤0.8 and underwent revascularisation; and Group 3-FFR≤0.8 and refused to undergo revascularization. 281(99.6%) patients had regular follow-up in our clinic.
Median age-57 years (range=28-78). Males=230, 90 patients were in Group 1, 175 in group 2 (PCI in 144 & CABG in 31) and 17 in group 3. Median follow-up of patients was 17.9 months (2 to 56 months). Three patients(3.4%) in Group 1 had MACE (1 STEMI, 2 UA); 4 patients (2.3%) in Group 2 had Non-STE-ACS; 7 patients (41%) in Group 3 had MACE (3 deaths with acute LVF, 2 NSTEMI, 2 STEMI) CONCLUSION: In our experience, MACE events were not higher in patients with FFR>0.8 and kept under medical therapy and were similarly lower in patients with FFR ≤0.8 and underwent revascularisation (p=0.73). Also MACE events were higher in patients with FFR≤0.8 and did not undergo revascularisation compared to other two appropriately treated groups (p=0.03). FFR based revascularization decision appears to be a safe strategy in Indian patients.
我们开展这项研究以验证血流储备分数(FFR)指导下的冠状动脉介入治疗对印度患者的影响,目前尚无相关现成资料。我们的患者在风险特征(更年轻、更多代谢综合征、高脂饮食)以及冠状动脉大小方面与西方患者不同。
我们回顾性评估了282例冠状动脉中度狭窄患者,这些患者接受了FFR检查以评估病变的功能严重程度。分为3组:第1组-FFR>0.8,继续接受药物随访;第2组-FFR≤0.8,接受血运重建;第3组-FFR≤0.8,拒绝接受血运重建。281例(99.6%)患者在我们诊所接受了定期随访。
中位年龄57岁(范围=28-78岁)。男性230例,第1组90例,第2组175例(144例接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗[PCI],31例接受冠状动脉旁路移植术[CABG]),第3组17例。患者的中位随访时间为17.9个月(2至56个月)。第1组3例患者(3.4%)发生主要不良心血管事件(MACE)(1例ST段抬高型心肌梗死,2例不稳定型心绞痛);第2组4例患者(2.3%)发生非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征;第3组7例患者(41%)发生MACE(3例因急性左心衰竭死亡,2例非ST段抬高型心肌梗死,2例ST段抬高型心肌梗死)。结论:根据我们的经验,FFR>0.8且接受药物治疗的患者MACE事件并不更高,FFR≤0.8且接受血运重建的患者MACE事件同样较低(p=0.73)。此外,与其他两个接受适当治疗的组相比,FFR≤0.8且未接受血运重建的患者MACE事件更高(p=0.03)。基于FFR的血运重建决策在印度患者中似乎是一种安全策略。