Evidence Hub

Association of Improvement in Fractional Flow Reserve With Outcomes, Including Symptomatic Relief, After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Fournier S, Ciccarelli G, Toth GG, Milkas A, Xaplanteris P, Tonino PAL, Fearon WF, Pijls NHJ et al.

JAMA cardiology, 2019

639 participants

Abstract

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 639 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free