Di Gioia Giuseppe, De Bruyne Bernard, Pellicano Mariano, Bartunek Jozef, Colaiori Iginio, Fiordelisi Antonella, Canciello Grazia, Xaplanteris Panagiotis, Fournier Stephane, Katbeh Asim, Franco Danilo, Kodeboina Monika, Morisco Carmine, Van Praet Frank, Casselman Filip, Degrieck Ivan, Stockman Bernard, Vanderheyden Marc, Barbato Emanuele
Cardiovascular Center Aalst, OLV Clinic, Moorselbaan, 164, B-9300 Aalst, Belgium.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University, Via S. Pansini, 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Eur Heart J. 2020 May 1;41(17):1665-1672. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz571.
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has never been investigated in patients with reduced ejection fraction and associated coronary artery disease (CAD). We evaluated the impact of FFR on the management strategies of these patients and related outcomes.
From 2002 to 2010, all consecutive patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤50% undergoing coronary angiography with ≥1 intermediate coronary stenosis [diameter stenosis (DS)% 50-70%] treated based on angiography (Angiography-guided group) or according to FFR (FFR-guided group) were screened for inclusion. In the FFR-guided group, 433 patients were matched with 866 contemporary patients of the Angiography-guided group. For outcome comparison, 617 control patients with LVEF >50% were included. After FFR, stenotic vessels per patient were significantly downgraded compared with the Angiography-guided group (1.43 ± 0.98 vs. 1.97 ± 0.84; P < 0.001). This was associated with lower revascularization rate (52% vs. 62%; P < 0.001) in the FFR-guided vs. the Angiography-guided group. All-cause death at 5 years of follow-up was significantly lower in the FFR-guided as compared with Angiography-guided group [22% vs. 31%. HR (95% CI) 0.64 (0.51-0.81); P < 0.001]. Similarly, rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stroke) was significantly lower in the FFR-guided group [40% vs. 46% in the Angiography-guided group. HR (95% CI) 0.81 (0.67-0.97); P = 0.019]. Higher rates of death and MACCE were observed in patients with reduced LVEF compared with the control cohort.
In patients with reduced LVEF and CAD, FFR-guided revascularization was associated with lower rates of death and MACCE at 5 years as compared with the Angiography-guided strategy. This beneficial impact was observed in parallel with less coronary artery bypass grafting and more patients deferred to percutaneous coronary intervention or medical therapy.
射血分数降低且伴有冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的患者从未接受过血流储备分数(FFR)研究。我们评估了FFR对这些患者管理策略及相关结局的影响。
2002年至2010年,对所有连续的左心室射血分数(LVEF)≤50%且接受冠状动脉造影检查、存在≥1处中度冠状动脉狭窄[直径狭窄(DS)%为50 - 70%]的患者进行筛选,这些患者分别接受基于血管造影的治疗(血管造影指导组)或根据FFR的治疗(FFR指导组)。在FFR指导组中,433例患者与血管造影指导组的866例当代患者进行匹配。为进行结局比较,纳入了617例LVEF >50%的对照患者。与血管造影指导组相比,FFR检查后每位患者的狭窄血管显著减少(1.43±0.98对1.97±0.84;P <0.001)。这与FFR指导组较低的血运重建率相关(52%对62%;P <0.001)。与血管造影指导组相比,FFR指导组在5年随访时的全因死亡率显著更低[22%对31%。风险比(95%置信区间)0.64(0.51 - 0.81);P <0.001]。同样,FFR指导组的主要不良心血管和脑血管事件(MACCE:全因死亡、心肌梗死、血运重建和中风的综合)发生率显著更低[血管造影指导组为46%,FFR指导组为40%。风险比(95%置信区间)0.81(0.67 - 0.97);P =0.019]。与对照组相比,LVEF降低的患者死亡和MACCE发生率更高。
在LVEF降低且患有CAD的患者中,与血管造影指导策略相比,FFR指导的血运重建在5年时与更低的死亡和MACCE发生率相关。这种有益影响伴随着冠状动脉旁路移植术减少以及更多患者推迟至经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或药物治疗而出现。