Hospital Clínico San Carlos, IDISSC, and Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Aug 13;11(15):1437-1449. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.05.029.
The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS).
Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization.
The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year.
Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04).
Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year.
本研究旨在探讨在稳定型心绞痛(SAP)和急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者中,基于瞬时无波比(iFR)或血流储备分数(FFR)测量值对行冠状动脉血运重建术的患者进行延迟处理的临床结局。
推荐使用压力导丝评估冠状动脉狭窄严重程度,以确定是否需要进行心肌血运重建。
对 DEFINE-FLAIR(中间狭窄的功能病变评估以指导血运重建)和 iFR-SWEDEHEART(稳定型心绞痛或急性冠状动脉综合征患者的瞬时无波比与血流储备分数)随机临床试验的汇总意向治疗人群(n=4486)中,延迟冠状动脉血运重建的安全性进行了研究。根据 iFR 或 FFR 及临床表现(SAP 或 ACS)对患者进行血运重建决策分层。主要终点为主要不良心脏事件(MACE),定义为 1 年时全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死或计划外血运重建的复合终点。
在 2130 例患者中进行了冠状动脉血运重建延迟处理。在 iFR 组中,有 1117 例(50%)患者和 FFR 组中 1013 例(45%)患者进行了延迟处理(p<0.01)。在 1 年时,延迟组中 iFR 组和 FFR 组的 MACE 发生率相似(4.12%比 4.05%;完全校正后的危险比:1.13;95%置信区间:0.72 至 1.79;p=0.60)。与 SAP 相比,ACS 患者的临床表现与更高的 MACE 发生率相关,在延迟处理的患者中分别为 5.91%和 3.64%(ACS 和 SAP 组;完全校正后的危险比:0.61,有利于 SAP;95%置信区间:0.38 至 0.99;p=0.04)。
总的来说,iFR 和 FFR 指导下的血运重建延迟处理安全性相当,MACE 发生率均较低,约为 4%。当使用 iFR 评估生理意义时,病变更常被延迟处理。在 1 年时,与 SAP 相比,ACS 患者的延迟处理组中事件发生率显著增加。