Key result
An FFR-guided revascularization strategy significantly reduced the risk of target vessel failure compared to an angio-guided approach (HR 0.58) over a median follow-up of 3.6 years.
Why the study?
Questions regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of FFR have recently arisen across various clinical settings.
Does an FFR-guided strategy reduce target vessel failure compared to an angiography-guided strategy in patients with coronary lesions?
Observational (n=1,305)
Yes
Does an FFR-guided strategy reduce target vessel failure compared to an angiography-guided strategy in patients with coronary lesions?
Hazard Ratio: 0.58 (95% CI 0.44–0.76)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.029% vs 0.049%
p-value: p=0.0001
In a real-world prospective cohort, an FFR-guided strategy for coronary lesions was safe and associated with a significantly lower rate of target vessel failure compared to an angiography-guided approach.
Background: Recently, questions around the efficacy and effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) have arisen in various clinical settings. Methods: The Clinical Outcome of FFR-guided Revascularization Strategy of Coronary Lesions (HALE-BOPP) study is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, international prospective study enrolling patients who underwent FFR measurement on at least one vessel. In accordance with the decision-making workflow and treatment, the vessels were classified in three subgroups: (i) angio-revascularized, (ii) FFR-revascularized, (iii) FFR-deferred. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of target vessel failure (TVF, cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization). The analysis was carried out at vessel- and patient-level. Results: 1305 patients with 2422 diseased vessels fulfilled the criteria for the present analysis. Wire-related pitfalls and transient adenosine-related side effects occurred in 0.8% (95% CI: 0.4%–1.4%) and 3.3% (95% CI: 2.5%–4.3%) of cases, respectively. In FFR-deferred vessels, the overall incidence rate of TVF was 0.024 (95% CI: 0.019–0.031) lesion/year. After a median follow-up of 3.6 years, the occurrence of TVF was 6%, 7% and 11.7% in FFR-deferred, FFR-revascularized and angio-revascularized vessels, respectively. Compared to angio-revascularized vessels, FFR-guided vessels (both FFR-revascularized and FFR-deferred vessels) showed a lower TVF incidence rate lesion/year (0.029, 95% CI: 0.024–0.034 vs. 0.049, 95% CI: 0.040–0.061 respectively, p = 0.0001). The result was consistent after correction for confounding factors and across subgroups of clinical interest. The patient-level analysis confirmed the lower occurrence of TVF in negative-FFR vs. positive-FFR subgroups. Conclusions: In a large prospective observational study, an FFR-based strategy for the deferral of coronary lesions is a reliable and safe tool, associated with good outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03079739.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tebaldi et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Coronary lesions (n=1,305). FFR-guided revascularization strategy vs. Angio-guided revascularization was evaluated on Target vessel failure (TVF, composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.76, p=0.0001). An FFR-guided revascularization strategy significantly reduced the risk of target vessel failure compared to an angio-guided approach (HR 0.58) over a median follow-up of 3.6 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: