Key result
FFR guidance alters revascularization decisions in ~12% of ambiguous coronary lesions versus angiography alone.
Why the study?
FFR is the gold standard for assessing coronary lesion significance but sees limited clinical use, prompting investigation into whether FFR influences treatment decisions compared with visual angiographic assessment.
Does FFR assessment influence treatment decisions for coronary artery disease compared to visual angiographic assessment alone?
Observational (n=63)
Single-blind (cardiologists assessing angiograms were blinded to FFR results)
No
Does FFR assessment influence treatment decisions for coronary artery disease compared to visual angiographic assessment alone?
Incorporating FFR into decision making alters visually guided revascularization strategies in over 10% of cases, preventing unnecessary interventions and capturing missed functionally significant lesions.
FFR may influence decisions for ambiguous lesions; leaves open whether routine use improves outcomes in prospective trials.
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is regarded as the gold standard for assessing the functional significance of coronary artery lesions. However, its utilization in clinical practice remains limited. This study aims to determine whether FFR results can influence treatment decisions for coronary artery disease compared to visual assessments of angiographic images. We conducted a retrospective study involving 63 patients diagnosed with either chronic coronary syndrome (n = 39, 61.9%) or acute coronary syndrome (n = 24, 38.1%) who underwent an FFR assessment. Three experienced interventional cardiologists (>300 PCI procedures/year) reevaluated 105 ambiguous coronary lesions in these patients, blinded to the FFR results. The objective was to assess lesion significance and determine the treatment strategy based on a visual angiographic evaluation. The three operators reached concordant agreement (≥two operators) to perform PCI in 60 (57.1%) of the evaluated lesions based on the angiographic assessment. Of these, nine lesions (15%) were deemed functionally non-significant by FFR (FFR > 0.80). Conversely, they agreed to defer PCI in 45 (42.9%) lesions, but 4 lesions (8.9%) were found to be functionally significant (FFR ≤ 0.80) and required a re-evaluation for PCI. Visual-guided decision making by interventional cardiologists shows variability and does not always align with the functional significance of coronary lesions as determined by FFR. Incorporating FFR into routine decision making could enhance treatment accuracy and patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grib et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (chronic and acute coronary syndrome) with ambiguous coronary lesions (n=63). Fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment vs. Visual angiographic assessment was evaluated on Change in revascularization clinical decision making (lesion treatment strategy). Fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment altered the revascularization decision in 12.4% of ambiguous coronary lesions, preventing unnecessary PCI in 15% of visually severe cases and indicating PCI in 8.9% of visually deferred cases.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: