Search

A 58-year-old male with prior history of mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in 2009 for severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation in a bicuspid aortic valve, and since 2013 a new-onset severe asymptomatic primary mitral regurgitation (MR) due to prolapse of the anterior mitral valve leaflet (AMVL) presented himself with acute heart failure. Based on current guidelines recommendations, this patient was not eligible for transcutaneous mitral valve edge-to-edge repair (TEER), as well he was found as too high risk for conventional mitral valve repair. However, as a last resort TEER was undertaken with an unconventional strategy, which resulted in resolution of the MR and improvement of clinical, biochemical findings.

The appropriate duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients at high risk for bleeding after the implantation of a drug-eluting coronary stent remains unclear.One month after they had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent, we randomly assigned patients at high bleeding risk to discontinue dual antiplatelet therapy immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy). The three ranked primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding; cumulative incidences were assessed at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.Among the 4434 patients in the per-protocol population, net adverse clinical events occurred in 165 patients (7.5%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 172 (7.7%) in the standard-therapy group (difference, -0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.80 to 1.33; P0.001 for noninferiority). A total of 133 patients (6.1%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and 132 patients (5.9%) in the standard-therapy group had a major adverse cardiac or cerebral event (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.29 to 1.51; P = 0.001 for noninferiority). Among the 4579 patients in the intention-to-treat population, major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 148 patients (6.5%) in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 211 (9.4%) in the standard-therapy group (difference, -2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.40 to -1.24; P0.001 for superiority).One month of dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to the continuation of therapy for at least 2 additional months with regard to the occurrence of net adverse clinical events and major adverse cardiac or cerebral events; abbreviated therapy also resulted in a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. (Funded by Terumo; MASTER DAPT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03023020.).

Background Multisite artery disease is considered a ‘malignant’ type of atherosclerotic disease associated with an increased cardiovascular risk, but the impact of multisite artery disease on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. Methods Patients enrolled in the large, prospective e-Ultimaster study were grouped into (1) those without known prior vascular disease, (2) those with known single-territory vascular disease, and (3) those with known two to three territories (i.e coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral) vascular disease (multisite artery disease). The primary outcome was coronary target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1-year. Inverse propensity score weighted (IPSW) analysis was performed to address differences in baseline patient and lesion characteristics. Results Of the 37 198 patients included in the study, 62.3% had no prior known vascular disease, 32.6% had single-territory vascular disease, and 5.1% had multisite artery disease. Patients with known vascular disease were older and were more likely to be men and to have more co-morbidities. After IPSW, the TLF rate incrementally increased with the number of diseased vascular beds (3.16%, 4.44%, and 6.42% for no, single, and multisite artery disease, respectively, P Conclusions Patients with previously known vascular disease experienced an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events and mortality post-PCI. This risk is highest among patients with multisite artery disease. Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02188355.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVES: To identify angiographic predictors of aberrant left circumflex artery (LCx) by comparing left main (LM) length and bifurcation angle between patients with aberrant LCx and normal anatomy. BACKGROUND: Failure to recognize aberrant LCx during a cardiac catheterization may hamper correct diagnosis, delay intervention in acute coronary syndromes, and result in increased contrast volume, radiation exposure, and infarct size. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed angiograms of aberrant LCx patients and normal anatomy matched controls, in three-participating centers. LM-length, bifurcation angle between the left anterior descending (LAD) and the first non-LAD branch of the LM, and procedural data were compared. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2020, 136 patients with aberrant LCx and 135 controls were identified. More catheters (2.4 ± 0.6 vs. 2.2 ± 0.9, p = 0.009), larger contrast volumes (169 ± 94 ml vs. 129 ± 68 ml, p 17.7 mm was associated with a 5.3 times greater probability of predicting aberrant LCx [95% CI (3.4-8.1), p

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the safety and performance of a newly introduced transfemoral self-expanding supra-annular transcatheter heart valve. Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become an established procedure, and newer transcatheter heart valves aim to supplement the current armamentarium. Methods BIOVALVE-I is a prospective, single-center feasibility study enrolling 13 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, and BIOVALVE-II is a multicenter pilot study enrolling a further 55 patients under the same protocol. Results Patients’ mean age was 82.4 ± 5.3 years, 57.4% had concomitant coronary artery disease, 50.0% had renal insufficiency stage ≥3, 32.4% had diabetes mellitus, 29.4% had current anemia, 19.1% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 19.1% were frail, and 17.6% had prior cerebrovascular events. The primary endpoint, early safety according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 guidelines, was observed in 13 patients (19.1%). One patient (1.5%) died through 30 days of a noncardiac cause, and 4 patients (7.8%) died through 180 days. Disabling stroke occurred at 30 days in 1 patient (1.5%) and at 180 days in 2 patients (3.2%). New permanent pacemakers up to 30 days were implanted in 9 patients (13.4%). Two patients (3.8%) had moderate or severe paravalvular leakage at 30 days and 4 (9.1%) at 6 months, mean effective orifice area was 2.0 ± 0.4 cm2 and 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2, and mean gradient was 6.4 mm Hg at 30 days and 6 months. Conclusions Clinical outcomes with the Biovalve self-expanding transcatheter heart valve were similar to those seen in other first-in-human studies with first-generation devices for severe aortic stenosis.

Patients with suspected non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are currently transported and admitted to the nearest emergency department (ED) for risk stratification, diagnostic workup and treatment. Although such patients with NSTE-ACS can benefit from direct transfer to a PCI center for early invasive treatment, no reliable prehospital triage tools are available. Recently, the PreHEART score has been validated in the PreHEART study for prehospital triage of patients with suspected NSTE-ACS.The primary objective of the TRIAGE-ACS study, a prospective cohort study, is to determine whether prehospital triage using the PreHEART score can significantly reduce time from first medical contact to final diagnostics and revascularization in patients in need of coronary revascularization. The first cohort (control cohort; n = 500) is observatory and is used as a reference group for the second cohort. In the second cohort (interventional cohort; n = 500) patients are stratified in the ambulance for direct transfer to either a PCI or a non-PCI center, based on the PreHEART score. These two cohorts will be compared with each other. In total, 1000 patients will be included. Follow-up for endpoints will be performed by reviewing the medical record after 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years.The TRIAGE-ACS study is the first prospective study to investigate the impact of prehospital triage using the PreHEART score on time to final invasive diagnostics and treatment in patients with NSTE-ACS in need of revascularization by transferring high risk patients directly to a PCI center and patients at a low risk of having an NSTE-ACS to a non-PCI center. Such triage strategy could potentially result in optimization of regional care for all ACS patients.

The need for a quantitative and operator-independent assessment of coronary microvascular function is increasingly recognized. We propose the theoretical framework of microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) as an index specific for the microvasculature, independent of autoregulation and myocardial mass, and based on operator-independent measurements of absolute values of coronary flow and pressure. In its general form, MRR equals coronary flow reserve (CFR) divided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) corrected for driving pressures. In 30 arteries, pressure, temperature, and flow velocity measurements were obtained simultaneously at baseline (BL), during infusion of saline at 10 mL/min (rest) and 20 mL/min (hyperemia). A strong correlation was found between continuous thermodilution-derived MRR and Doppler MRR (r = 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.93; P 0.001). MRR was independent from the epicardial resistance, the lower the FFR value, the greater the difference between MRR and CFR. Therefore, MRR is proposed as a specific, quantitative, and operator-independent metric to quantify coronary microvascular dysfunction.

Performing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for fractional flow reserve (FFR) positive coronary lesions improves clinical outcomes and is recommended by international guidelines. It has been hypothesized that lesions with a positive FFR but a preserved coronary flow reserve (CFR) are less likely to be flow limiting and might best be treated medically. We investigated the association of CFR in FFR-positive lesions with clinical outcomes when treated medically, as well as the treatment effect of PCI vs medical therapy in FFR-positive lesions and a preserved CFR.We performed a substudy of the randomized, multicenter Compare-Acute trial, in which stabilized ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with non-culprit lesions were randomized to either FFR-guided PCI or medical therapy. Based on baseline and hyperemic pressure gradients, we computed physiologic limits of CFR, the so-called pressure-bounded CFR (pb-CFR), and classified lesions as low (2) or preserved (≥2). The primary endpoint was 12-month major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate, defined as a composite of death from any cause, non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularization, or cerebrovascular events.A total of 980 lesions from 885 patients were included in this substudy. In lesions with FFR ≤0.80, a total of 249 patients had a pb-CFR2 and 29 patients had a preserved CFR (pb-CFR ≥2). The rate of MACCE at 1 year was not significantly different between patients with FFR ≤0.80 and pb-CFR2 vs patients with FFR ≤0.80 and pb-CFR ≥2 (25% vs 17%, respectively; P=.39). Because of randomization, baseline characteristics were well balanced between patients with FFR ≤0.80 and pb-CFR ≥2 treated by either by PCI or medical therapy. Importantly, in patients with FFR ≤0.80 and pb-CFR ≥2, MACCE occurred more frequently in patients treated medically vs patients treated by PCI (44% vs 0%, respectively; P=.01).Preserved or low pb-CFR did not alter clinical outcomes in patients with a positive FFR. Patients with FFR-positive coronary lesions but a preserved CFR had more clinical events when treated medically vs those treated with PCI.

ObjectiveTo review, inventory and compare available diagnostic tools and investigate which tool has the best performance for prehospital risk assessment in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. Medline and Embase were searched up till 1 April 2021. Prospective studies with patients, suspected of NSTE-ACS, presenting in the primary care setting or by emergency medical services (EMS) were included. The most important exclusion criteria were studies including only patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and studies before 1995, the pretroponin era. The primary end point was the final hospital discharge diagnosis of NSTE-ACS or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 6 weeks. Risk of bias was evaluated by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Criteria.Main outcome and measuresSensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio of findings for risk stratification in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS.ResultsIn total, 15 prospective studies were included; these studies reflected in total 26 083 patients. No specific variables related to symptoms, physical examination or risk factors were useful in risk stratification for NSTE-ACS diagnosis. The most useful electrocardiographic finding was ST-segment depression (LR+3.85 (95% CI 2.58 to 5.76)). Point-of-care troponin was found to be a strong predictor for NSTE-ACS in primary care (LR+14.16 (95% CI 4.28 to 46.90) and EMS setting (LR+6.16 (95% CI 5.02 to 7.57)). Combined risk scores were the best for risk assessment in an NSTE-ACS. From the combined risk scores that can be used immediately in a prehospital setting, the PreHEART score, a validated combined risk score for prehospital use, derived from the HEART score (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin), was most useful for risk stratification in patients with NSTE-ACS (LR+8.19 (95% CI 5.47 to 12.26)) and for identifying patients without ACS (LR−0.05 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.15)).DiscussionImportant study limitations were verification bias and heterogeneity between studies. In the prehospital setting, several diagnostic tools have been reported which could improve risk stratification, triage and early treatment in patients suspected for NSTE-ACS. On-site assessment of troponin and combined risk scores derived from the HEART score are strong predictors. These results support further studies to investigate the impact of these new tools on logistics and clinical outcome.FundingThis study is funded by ZonMw, the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development.Trial registration numberThis meta-analysis was published for registration in PROSPERO prior to starting (CRD York, CRD42021254122).

Background: Among patients with documented stable coronary artery disease and in whom no revascularization was performed, we compared the respective values of angiographic diameter stenosis (DS) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in predicting natural history. Methods: The present analysis included the 607 patients from the FAME 2 trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation 2) in whom no revascularization was performed. FFR varied from 0.20 to 1.00 (average 0.74±0.16), and DS (by quantitative coronary analysis) varied from 8% to 98% (average 53±15). The primary end point, defined as vessel-oriented clinical end point (VOCE) at 2 years, was a composite of prospectively adjudicated cardiac death, vessel-related myocardial infarction, vessel-related urgent, and not urgent revascularization. The stenoses were divided into 4 groups according to FFR and %DS values: positive concordance (FFR≤0.80; DS≥50%), negative concordance (FFR>0.80; DS0.80; DS≥50%). Results: The rate of VOCE was highest in the positive concordance group (log rank: X 2 =80.96; P =0.001) and lowest in the negative concordance group. The rate of VOCE was higher in the positive mismatch group than in the negative mismatch group (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.21–0.67; P =0.001). There was no significant difference in VOCE between the positive concordance and positive mismatch groups (FFR≤0.80; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.57–1.09; P =0.149) and no significant difference in rate of VOCE between the negative mismatch and negative concordance groups (FFR>0.80; hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.96–3.74; P =0.067). Conclusions: In patients with stable coronary disease, physiology (FFR) is a more important determinant of the natural history of coronary stenoses than anatomy (DS). Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01132495.

Objectives This study sought to compare fractional flow reserve (FFR) with the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in patients with coronary artery disease and also to determine whether the iFR is independent of hyperemia. Background FFR is a validated index of coronary stenosis severity. FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves clinical outcomes compared to angiographic guidance alone. iFR has been proposed as a new index of stenosis severity that can be measured without adenosine. Methods We conducted a prospective, multicenter, international study of 206 consecutive patients referred for PCI and a retrospective analysis of 500 archived pressure recordings. Aortic and distal coronary pressures were measured in duplicate in patients under resting conditions and during intravenous adenosine infusion at 140 μg/kg/min. Results Compared to the FFR cut-off value of ≤0.80, the diagnostic accuracy of the iFR value of ≤0.80 was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 53% to 67%) for all vessels studied and 51% (95% CI: 43% to 59%) for those patients with FFR in the range of 0.60 to 0.90. iFR was significantly influenced by the induction of hyperemia: mean ± SD iFR at rest was 0.82 ± 0.16 versus 0.64 ± 0.18 with hyperemia (p Conclusions iFR correlates weakly with FFR and is not independent of hyperemia. iFR cannot be recommended for clinical decision making in patients with coronary artery disease. (Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Instant Wave-Free Ratio for Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis Severity in Routine Practice; NCT01559493)

Introduction Studies on the blood pressure lowering effect of renal denervation (RDN) in resistant hypertensive patients have produced conflicting results. Change in medication usage during the studies may be responsible for this inconsistency. To eliminate the effect of medication usage on blood pressure we focused on unmedicated hypertensive patients who underwent RDN. Methods and results Our study reports on a cohort of patients, who were not on blood pressure lowering drugs at baseline and during follow-up, from eight tertiary centers. Data of patients were used when they were treated with RDN and had a baseline office systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and/or 24-h ambulatory SBP ≥130 mmHg. Our primary outcome was defined as change in office and 24-h SBP at 12 months after RDN, compared to baseline. Fifty-three patients were included. There were three different reasons for not using blood pressure lowering drugs: (1) documented intolerance or allergic reaction (57 %); (2) temporary cessation of medication for study purposes (28 %); and (3) reluctance to take antihypertensive drugs (15 %). Mean change in 24-h SBP was −5.7 mmHg [95 % confidence interval (CI) −11.0 to −0.4; p = 0.04]. Mean change in office SBP was −13.1 mmHg (95 % CI −20.4 to −5.7; p = 0.001). No changes were observed in other variables, such as eGFR, body–mass-index and urinary sodium excretion. Conclusion This explorative study in hypertensive patients, who are not on blood pressure lowering drugs, suggests that at least in some patients RDN lowers blood pressure. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00392-016-0984-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A b s t r ac t Background The preferred initial treatment for patients with stable coronary artery disease is the best available medical therapy. We hypothesized that in patients with functionally significant stenoses, as determined by measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus the best available medical therapy would be superior to the best available medical therapy alone. Methods In patients with stable coronary artery disease for whom PCI was being considered, we assessed all stenoses by measuring FFR. Patients in whom at least one stenosis was functionally significant (FFR, ≤0.80) were randomly assigned to FFR-guided PCI plus the best available medical therapy (PCI group) or the best available medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group). Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 were entered into a registry and received the best available medical therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization. Results Recruitment was halted prematurely after enrollment of 1220 patients (888 who underwent randomization and 332 enrolled in the registry) because of a significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients who had a primary endpoint event: 4.3% in the PCI group and 12.7% in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio with PCI, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.53; P

The aim of this study was to study whether there is a difference in benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR) guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in multivessel coronary disease in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), compared with stable angina (SA).The use of FFR to guide PCI has been well established for patients with SA. Its use in patients with UA or NSTEMI has not been investigated prospectively.In the FAME (Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study 1,005 patients with multivessel disease amenable to PCI were included and randomized to either angiography-guided PCI of all lesions ≥50% or FFR-guided PCI of lesions with an FFR ≤0.80. Patients admitted for UA or NSTEMI with positive troponin but total creatine kinase1,000 U/l were eligible for inclusion. We determined 2-year major adverse cardiac event rates of these patients and compared it with stable patients.Of 1,005 patients, 328 had UA or NSTEMI. There was no evidence for heterogeneity among the subgroups for any of the outcome variables (all p values0.05). Using FFR to guide PCI resulted in similar risk reductions of major adverse cardiac events and its components in patients with UA or NSTEMI, compared with patients with SA (absolute risk reduction of 5.1% vs. 3.7%, respectively, p = 0.92). In patients with UA or NSTEMI, the number of stents was reduced without increase in hospital stay or procedure time and with less contrast use, in similarity to stable patients.The benefit of using FFR to guide PCI in multivessel disease does not differ between patients with UA or NSTEMI, compared with patients with SA.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the 2-year outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).In patients with multivessel CAD undergoing PCI, coronary angiography is the standard method for guiding stent placement. The FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study showed that routine FFR in addition to angiography improves outcomes of PCI at 1 year. It is unknown if these favorable results are maintained at 2 years of follow-up.At 20 U.S. and European medical centers, 1,005 patients with multivessel CAD were randomly assigned to PCI with drug-eluting stents guided by angiography alone or guided by FFR measurements. Before randomization, lesions requiring PCI were identified based on their angiographic appearance. Patients randomized to angiography-guided PCI underwent stenting of all indicated lesions, whereas those randomized to FFR-guided PCI underwent stenting of indicated lesions only if the FFR wasor=0.80.The number of indicated lesions was 2.7+/-0.9 in the angiography-guided group and 2.8+/-1.0 in the FFR-guided group (p=0.34). The number of stents used was 2.7+/-1.2 and 1.9+/-1.3, respectively (p0.001). The 2-year rates of mortality or myocardial infarction were 12.9% in the angiography-guided group and 8.4% in the FFR-guided group (p=0.02). Rates of PCI or coronary artery bypass surgery were 12.7% and 10.6%, respectively (p=0.30). Combined rates of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and revascularization were 22.4% and 17.9%, respectively (p=0.08). For lesions deferred on the basis of FFR0.80, the rate of myocardial infarction was 0.2% and the rate of revascularization was 3.2 % after 2 years.Routine measurement of FFR in patients with multivessel CAD undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents significantly reduces mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years when compared with standard angiography-guided PCI. (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation [FAME]; NCT00267774).

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between angiographic and functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation) study.It can be difficult to determine on the coronary angiogram which lesions cause ischemia. Revascularization of coronary stenoses that induce ischemia improves a patient's functional status and outcome. For stenoses that do not induce ischemia, however, the benefit of revascularization is less clear.In the FAME study, routine measurement of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) was compared with angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The use of the FFR in addition to angiography significantly reduced the rate of all major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. Of the 1,414 lesions (509 patients) in the FFR-guided arm of the FAME study, 1,329 were successfully assessed by the FFR and are included in this analysis.Before FFR measurement, these lesions were categorized into 50% to 70% (47% of all lesions), 71% to 90% (39% of all lesions), and 91% to 99% (15% of all lesions) diameter stenosis by visual assessment. In the category 50% to 70% stenosis, 35% were functionally significant (FFRor=0.80) and 65% were not (FFR0.80). In the category 71% to 90% stenosis, 80% were functionally significant and 20% were not. In the category of subtotal stenoses, 96% were functionally significant. Of all 509 patients with angiographically defined multivessel disease, only 235 (46%) had functional multivessel disease (or=2 coronary arteries with an FFRor=0.80).Angiography is inaccurate in assessing the functional significance of a coronary stenosis when compared with the FFR, not only in the 50% to 70% category but also in the 70% to 90% angiographic severity category.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) significantly improves outcomes compared with angio-guided PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, there is a theoretical concern that patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF

Purpose: We sought to investigate the relationship between global ischemia and clinical outcome in patients with stable coronary disease. Methods: This FAME 2 sub-analysis was conducted in 607 patients (pts) with at least one diseased major coronary artery, and receiving medical therapy (MT) alone (441 pts in the randomized trial and 166 pts with follow-up in the registry). We analyzed the rate of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (MACE) in relation to a FAME 2 global ischemic risk score, defined as the sum of the individual risks of MACE for each target lesion and calculated as following: ∑1.3(1-FFRlesion)/0.05. Results: At least one MACE occurred in 95 pts (15.7%) at a median follow-up of 172 (80-284) days. Mean FAME 2 score was significantly higher in pts with MACE than in pts w/o MACE (16.2±18.7 vs. 9.4±12.1, p