Key result
FFR ≤0.80 is linked to ~40% higher MACE risk, while Pb-CFR adds no prognostic value.
Why the study?
CFR has an emerging prognostic role, but the utility of its surrogate pressure bounded-CFR (Pb-CFR) is controversial, prompting investigation into the usefulness of combined FFR and Pb-CFR.
Does the combined use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and pressure-bounded coronary flow reserve (Pb-CFR) improve prognostic prediction in patients with chronic coronary syndrome?
Cohort (n=609)
Does the combined use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and pressure-bounded coronary flow reserve (Pb-CFR) improve prognostic prediction in patients with chronic coronary syndrome?
FFR reliably predicts outcomes in patients with intermediate coronary stenoses, while Pb-CFR does not add relevant prognostic information.
FFR retains prognostic value in chronic coronary syndrome; leaves open whether Pb-CFR combination improves prediction beyond FFR alone.
BACKGROUND: Coronary flow reserve (CFR) has an emerging role to predict outcome in patients with and without flow-limiting stenoses. However, the role of its surrogate pressure bounded-CFR (Pb-CFR) is controversial. We investigated the usefulness of combined use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and Pb-CFR to predict outcomes.METHODS: This is a sub-study of the PROPHET-FFR Trial, including patients with chronic coronary syndrome and functionally tested coronary lesions. Patients were divided into four groups based on positive or negative FFR (cut-off 0.80) and preserved (lower boundary ≥2) or reduced (upper boundary <2) Pb-CFR: Group1 FFR≤0.80/ Pb-CFR <2; Group 2 FFR≤0.80/Pb-CFR≥2; Group 3 FFR >0.80/Pb-CFR<2; Group 4 FFR>0.80/Pb-CFR≥2. Lesions with positive FFR were treated with PCI. Primary endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, unplanned cardiac hospitalization at 36-months.RESULTS: A total of 609 patients and 816 lesions were available for the analysis. At Kaplan-Meier analysis MACEs rate was significantly different between groups (36.7% Group 1, 27.4% Group 2, 19.2% Group 3, 22.6% Group 4, P=0.019) and more prevalent in groups with FFR≤0.80 irrespective of Pb-CFR. In case of discrepancy, no difference in MACEs were observed between groups stratified by Pb-CFR. FFR≤0.80 was associated with an increased MACEs rate (30.2% vs. 21.5%, P<0.01) while Pb-CFR<2 was not (24.5% vs. 24.2% Pb-CFR≥2 P=0.67).CONCLUSIONS: FFR confirms its ability to predict outcomes in patients with intermediate coronary stenoses. Pb-CFR does not add any relevant prognostic information.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Galante et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Chronic coronary syndrome (n=609). Fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.80 vs. FFR >0.80 was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, unplanned cardiac hospitalization at 36-months (p=<0.01). FFR ≤0.80 was associated with a significantly higher 36-month MACE rate compared to FFR >0.80 (30.2% vs. 21.5%, P<0.01), whereas Pb-CFR provided no additional prognostic value.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: