Lee Joo Myung, Kim Hyun Kuk, Park Keun Ho, Choo Eun Ho, Kim Chan Joon, Lee Seung Hun, Kim Min Chul, Hong Young Joon, Ahn Sung Gyun, Doh Joon-Hyung, Lee Sang Yeub, Park Sang Don, Lee Hyun-Jong, Kang Min Gyu, Koh Jin-Sin, Cho Yun-Kyeong, Nam Chang-Wook, Koo Bon-Kwon, Lee Bong-Ki, Yun Kyeong Ho, Hong David, Joh Hyun Sung, Choi Ki Hong, Park Taek Kyu, Yang Jeong Hoon, Song Young Bin, Choi Seung-Hyuk, Gwon Hyeon-Cheol, Hahn Joo-Yong
Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81, Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea.
Chosun University Hospital, University of Chosun College of Medicine, 365 Pilmun-daero, Dong-gu, Gwangju 61453, Korea.
Eur Heart J. 2023 Feb 7;44(6):473-484. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac763.
In patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-infarct-related artery reduces death or MI. However, whether selective PCI guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is superior to routine PCI guided by angiography alone is unclear. The current trial sought to compare FFR-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI for non-infarct-related artery lesions among patients with acute MI and multivessel disease.
Patients with acute MI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful PCI of the infarct-related artery were randomly assigned to either FFR-guided PCI (FFR ≤0.80) or angiography-guided PCI (diameter stenosis of >50%) for non-infarct-related artery lesions. The primary end point was a composite of time to death, MI, or repeat revascularization. A total of 562 patients underwent randomization. Among them, 60.0% underwent immediate PCI for non-infarct-related artery lesions and 40.0% were treated by a staged procedure during the same hospitalization. PCI was performed for non-infarct-related artery in 64.1% in the FFR-guided PCI group and 97.1% in the angiography-guided PCI group, and resulted in significantly fewer stent used in the FFR-guided PCI group (2.2 ± 1.1 vs. 2.5 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years (interquartile range: 2.7-4.1 years), the primary end point occurred in 18 patients of 284 patients in the FFR-guided PCI group and in 40 of 278 patients in the angiography-guided PCI group (7.4% vs. 19.7%; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.75; P = 0.003). The death occurred in five patients (2.1%) in the FFR-guided PCI group and in 16 patients (8.5%) in the angiography-guided PCI group; MI in seven (2.5%) and 21 (8.9%), respectively; and unplanned revascularization in 10 (4.3%) and 16 (9.0%), respectively.
In patients with acute MI and multivessel coronary artery disease, a strategy of selective PCI using FFR-guided decision-making was superior to a strategy of routine PCI based on angiographic diameter stenosis for treatment of non-infarct-related artery lesions regarding the risk of death, MI, or repeat revascularization.
在急性心肌梗死(MI)合并多支冠状动脉疾病的患者中,对非梗死相关动脉进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)可降低死亡或心肌梗死风险。然而,基于血流储备分数(FFR)指导的选择性PCI是否优于单纯基于血管造影指导的常规PCI尚不清楚。本试验旨在比较急性MI合并多支血管病变患者中,FFR指导的PCI与血管造影指导的PCI治疗非梗死相关动脉病变的效果。
成功对梗死相关动脉进行PCI的急性MI合并多支冠状动脉疾病患者,被随机分配至FFR指导的PCI组(FFR≤0.80)或血管造影指导的PCI组(直径狭窄>50%),以治疗非梗死相关动脉病变。主要终点为死亡、心肌梗死或再次血运重建时间的复合终点。共有562例患者接受随机分组。其中,60.0%的患者对非梗死相关动脉病变进行了即刻PCI,40.0%的患者在同一住院期间接受分期手术治疗。FFR指导的PCI组中64.1%的患者对非梗死相关动脉进行了PCI,血管造影指导的PCI组中这一比例为97.1%,且FFR指导的PCI组使用的支架明显更少(2.2±1.1对比2.5±0.9,P<0.001)。在中位随访3.5年(四分位间距:2.7 - 4.1年)时,FFR指导的PCI组284例患者中有18例发生主要终点事件,血管造影指导的PCI组278例患者中有40例发生(7.4%对比19.7%;风险比,0.43;95%置信区间,0.25 - 0.75;P = 0.003)。FFR指导的PCI组有5例患者(2.1%)死亡,血管造影指导的PCI组有16例患者(8.5%)死亡;心肌梗死分别为7例(2.5%)和21例(8.9%);非计划血运重建分别为10例(4.3%)和16例(9.0%)。
在急性MI合并多支冠状动脉疾病患者中,对于非梗死相关动脉病变的治疗,采用基于FFR指导决策的选择性PCI策略在死亡、心肌梗死或再次血运重建风险方面优于基于血管造影直径狭窄的常规PCI策略。