Search

Background: Measuring fractional flow reserve (FFR) with a pressure wire remains underutilized because of the invasiveness of guide wire placement or the need for a hyperemic stimulus. FFR derived from routine coronary angiography (FFRangio) eliminates both of these requirements and displays FFR values of the entire coronary tree. The FFRangio Accuracy versus Standard FFR (FAST-FFR) study is a prospective, multicenter, international trial with the primary goal of determining the accuracy of FFRangio.Methods: Coronary angiography was performed in a routine fashion in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. FFR was measured in vessels with coronary lesions of varying severity using a coronary pressure wire and hyperemic stimulus. Based on angiograms of the respective arteries acquired in ≥2 different projections, on-site operators blinded to FFR then calculated FFRangio using proprietary software. Coprimary end points were the sensitivity and specificity of the dichotomously scored FFRangio for predicting pressure wire-derived FFR using a cutoff value of 0.80. The study was powered to meet prespecified performance goals for sensitivity and specificity.Results: Ten centers in the United States, Europe, and Israel enrolled a total of 301 subjects and 319 vessels meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria which were included in the final analysis. The mean FFR was 0.81 and 43% of vessels had an FFR≤0.80. The per-vessel sensitivity and specificity were 94% (95% CI, 88% to 97%) and 91% (86% to 95%), respectively, both of which exceeded the prespecified performance goals. The diagnostic accuracy of FFRangio was 92% overall and remained high when only considering FFR values between 0.75 to 0.85 (87%). FFRangio values correlated well with FFR measurements ( r=0.80, P<0.001) and the Bland-Altman 95% confidence limits were between -0.14 and 0.12. The device success rate for FFRangio was 99%.Conclusions: FFRangio measured from the coronary angiogram alone has a high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared with pressure wire-derived FFR. FFRangio has the promise to substantially increase physiological coronary lesion assessment in the catheterization laboratory, thereby potentially leading to improved patient outcomes.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT03226262. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Population-wide impacts of new guidelines in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) should be explored in independent cohorts. Assess and compare the lipid-lowering therapy eligibility and predictive classification performance of 2016 and 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC), 2019 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC), and 2022 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines., Methods and Results: Participants from the CoLaus|PsyCoLaus study, without ASCVD and not taking lipid-lowering therapy at baseline. Derivation of 10-year risk for ASCVD using Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE1), SCORE2 [including SCORE2-Older Persons (SCORE2-OP)], and pooled cohort equation. Computation of the number of people eligible for lipid-lowering therapy based on each guideline and assessment of discrimination and calibration metrics of the risk models using first incident ASCVD as an outcome. Among 4,092 individuals, 158 (3.9%) experienced an incident ASCVD during a median follow-up of 9 years (interquartile range, 1.1). Lipid-lowering therapy was recommended or considered in 40.2% (95% confidence interval, 38.2-42.2), 26.4% (24.6-28.2), 28.6% (26.7-30.5), and 22.6% (20.9-24.4) of women and in 62.1% (59.8-64.3), 58.7% (56.4-61.0), 52.6% (50.3-54.9), and 48.4% (46.1-50.7) of men according to the 2016 ESC, 2021 ESC, 2019 AHA/ACC, and 2022 USPSTF guidelines, respectively. 43.3 and 46.7% of women facing an incident ASCVD were not eligible for lipid-lowering therapy at baseline according to the 2021 ESC and 2022 USPSTF, compared with 21.7 and 38.3% using the 2016 ESC and 2019 AHA/ACC, respectively., Conclusion: Both the 2022 USPSTF and 2021 ESC guidelines particularly reduced lipid-lowering therapy eligibility in women. Nearly half of women who faced an incident ASCVD were not eligible for lipid-lowering therapy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Importance: Whether the improvement in myocardial perfusion provided by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with symptomatic relief or improved outcomes has not been well investigated., Objective: To investigate the prognostic value of the improvement in fractional flow reserve (FFR) after PCI (ΔFFR) on patients' symptoms and 2-year outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a post hoc analysis of data from patients undergoing FFR-guided PCI in the randomized clinical trials Fractional Flow Reserve vs Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) 1 (NCT00267774; 2009) and FAME 2 (NCT01132495; 2012), with inclusion of 2 years of follow-up data. The FAME 1 trial included patients with multivessel coronary artery disease from 20 medical centers in Europe and the United States. The FAME 2 trial included patients with stable coronary artery disease involving up to 3 vessels from 28 sites in Europe and North America. Lesions from the group in the FAME 1 trial from whom FFR was measured and the group in the FAME 2 trial who received FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy were analyzed. Data analysis occurred from May 2017 to May 2018., Interventions: Measure of post-PCI FFR., Main Outcomes and Measures: Vessel-oriented clinical events at 2 years, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-associated myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization., Results: This analysis included 639 patients from whom pre-PCI and post-PCI FFR values were available. Of their 837 lesions, 277 were classified into the lowest tertile (ΔFFR≤0.18), 282 into the middle tertile (0.19≤ΔFFR≤0.31), and 278 into the highest tertile (ΔFFR>0.31). Vessel-oriented clinical events were significantly more frequent in the lowest tertile (n = 25 of 277 [9.1%]) compared with the highest tertile (n = 13 of 278 [4.7%]; hazard ratio, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.03-3.92]; P = .04). In addition, a significant association was observed between ΔFFR and symptomatic relief (odds ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.02-1.74]; P = .02)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials, the larger the improvement in FFR, the larger the symptomatic relief and the lower the event rate. This suggests that measuring FFR before and after PCI provides clinically useful information.

Background: Measuring fractional flow reserve (FFR) with a pressure wire remains underutilized because of the invasiveness of guide wire placement or the need for a hyperemic stimulus. FFR derived from routine coronary angiography (FFR angio ) eliminates both of these requirements and displays FFR values of the entire coronary tree. The FFR angio Accuracy versus Standard FFR (FAST-FFR) study is a prospective, multicenter, international trial with the primary goal of determining the accuracy of FFR angio ., Methods: Coronary angiography was performed in a routine fashion in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. FFR was measured in vessels with coronary lesions of varying severity using a coronary pressure wire and hyperemic stimulus. Based on angiograms of the respective arteries acquired in ≥2 different projections, on-site operators blinded to FFR then calculated FFR angio using proprietary software. Coprimary end points were the sensitivity and specificity of the dichotomously scored FFR angio for predicting pressure wire-derived FFR using a cutoff value of 0.80. The study was powered to meet prespecified performance goals for sensitivity and specificity., Results: Ten centers in the United States, Europe, and Israel enrolled a total of 301 subjects and 319 vessels meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria which were included in the final analysis. The mean FFR was 0.81 and 43% of vessels had an FFR≤0.80. The per-vessel sensitivity and specificity were 94% (95% CI, 88% to 97%) and 91% (86% to 95%), respectively, both of which exceeded the prespecified performance goals. The diagnostic accuracy of FFR angio was 92% overall and remained high when only considering FFR values between 0.75 to 0.85 (87%). FFR angio values correlated well with FFR measurements ( r=0.80, P<0.001) and the Bland-Altman 95% confidence limits were between -0.14 and 0.12. The device success rate for FFR angio was 99%., Conclusions: FFR angio measured from the coronary angiogram alone has a high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared with pressure wire-derived FFR. FFR angio has the promise to substantially increase physiological coronary lesion assessment in the catheterization laboratory, thereby potentially leading to improved patient outcomes., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT03226262.