Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Italy.
Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Italy.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2024 Jan 22;17(2):277-287. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2023.10.032. Epub 2023 Oct 23.
The debate surrounding the efficacy of coronary physiological guidance compared with conventional angiography in achieving optimal post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) fractional flow reserve (FFR) values persists.
The primary aim of this study was to demonstrate the superiority of physiology-guided PCI, using either angiography or microcatheter-derived FFR, over conventional angiography-based PCI in complex high-risk indicated procedures (CHIPs). The secondary aim was to establish the noninferiority of angiography-derived FFR guidance compared with microcatheter-derived FFR guidance.
Patients with obstructive coronary lesions and meeting CHIP criteria were randomized 2:1 to receive undergo physiology- or angiography-based PCI. Those assigned to the former were randomly allocated to angiography- or microcatheter-derived FFR guidance. CHIP criteria were long lesion (>28 mm), tandem lesions, severe calcifications, severe tortuosity, true bifurcation, in-stent restenosis, and left main stem disease. The primary outcome was invasive post-PCI FFR value. The optimal post-PCI FFR value was defined as >0.86.
A total of 305 patients (331 study vessels) were enrolled in the study (101 undergoing conventional angiography-based PCI and 204 physiology-based PCI). Optimal post-PCI FFR values were more frequent in the physiology-based PCI group compared with the conventional angiography-based PCI group (77% vs 54%; absolute difference 23%, relative difference 30%; P < 0.0001). The occurrence of the primary outcome did not differ between the 2 physiology-based PCI subgroups, demonstrating the noninferiority of angiography- vs microcatheter-derived FFR (P < 0.01).
In CHIP patients, procedural planning and guidance on the basis of physiology (through either angiography- or microcatheter-derived FFR) are superior to conventional angiography for achieving optimal post-PCI FFR values. (Physiology Optimized Versus Angio-Guided PCI [AQVA-II]; NCT05658952).
关于冠状动脉生理学指导与传统血管造影术在实现经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后最佳血流储备分数(FFR)值方面的疗效的争论仍在继续。
本研究的主要目的是证明在复杂高危适应证(CHIPs)中,无论是基于血管造影还是微导管衍生 FFR 的生理学指导 PCI,均优于基于传统血管造影的 PCI。次要目的是证明血管造影衍生 FFR 指导与微导管衍生 FFR 指导相比具有非劣效性。
符合 CHIP 标准的有阻塞性冠状动脉病变的患者被随机分为 2:1 接受生理学或血管造影指导的 PCI。前者被随机分配到血管造影或微导管衍生 FFR 指导。CHIP 标准包括长病变(>28mm)、串联病变、严重钙化、严重迂曲、真性分叉、支架内再狭窄和左主干病变。主要结局是有创性 PCI 后 FFR 值。最佳 PCI 后 FFR 值定义为>0.86。
共有 305 例患者(331 支研究血管)入组本研究(101 例行传统血管造影指导的 PCI,204 例行生理学指导的 PCI)。与传统血管造影指导的 PCI 组相比,生理学指导的 PCI 组中 PCI 后最佳 FFR 值更常见(77% vs 54%;绝对差异 23%,相对差异 30%;P<0.0001)。2 个生理学指导 PCI 亚组之间主要结局的发生无差异,证明了血管造影与微导管衍生 FFR 的非劣效性(P<0.01)。
在 CHIP 患者中,基于生理学(通过血管造影或微导管衍生 FFR)的介入计划和指导优于传统血管造影,可实现最佳 PCI 后 FFR 值。(生理学优化与血管造影指导 PCI [AQVA-II];NCT05658952)。