Key result
Hemodialysis was associated with a higher incidence of target vessel failure compared to non-hemodialysis (34.8% vs 14.1%, p<0.001) in patients with deferred revascularization based on FFR >0.80.
Why the study?
While FFR-based deferred revascularization shows satisfactory outcomes generally, little research has evaluated long-term outcomes in patients undergoing hemodialysis.
Does hemodialysis status worsen long-term outcomes in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis after deferred revascularization based on FFR >0.80?
Cohort (n=225)
Does hemodialysis status worsen long-term outcomes in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis after deferred revascularization based on FFR >0.80?
Absolute Event Rate: 34.8% vs 14.1%
p-value: p=<0.001
Patients on hemodialysis have significantly worse long-term outcomes after FFR-based deferral of revascularization for intermediate coronary stenosis compared to non-hemodialysis patients, suggesting FFR >0.80 may not be as safe a deferral threshold in this population.
Deferred FFR revascularization linked to higher TVF in hemodialysis; hypothesis-generating for adjusted thresholds, needs prospective trials.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) after deferred revascularization based on fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND: FFR is a practical technique for assessing the functional severity of intermediate coronary stenosis. Prior research has revealed a satisfactory outcome in patients after the deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary lesions based on FFR measurement. However, little research has been conducted focusing on patients undergoing HD. METHODS: The retrospective study comprised 225 consecutive patients with FFR assessment and deferred revascularization between January 2016 and December 2019. Based on a deferral cutoff FFR value of >0.80, we assessed the differences in all-cause death, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and target vessel failure (TVF) between the HD (n = 69) and non-HD groups (n = 156) during a mean ± standard deviation routine follow-up of 32.2 ± 13.4 months. RESULTS: Although the HD group had significantly higher rates of diabetes mellitus than the non-HD group (53.6% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.021), there were no significant differences in sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, or other risk factors between the groups, nor with respect to stenosis diameter or mean FFR. The HD group had a significantly higher incidence of TVF than the non-HD group (34.8% vs. 14.1%, p < 0.001), as well as a significantly higher risk of all-cause death and MACEs. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed that deferred revascularization in coronary lesions with an FFR value of >0.80 in patients undergoing HD was associated with poor outcomes. Therefore, it is important to carefully monitor patients with intermediate coronary stenosis undergoing HD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nagasaka et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Intermediate coronary stenosis (n=225). Hemodialysis vs. Non-hemodialysis was evaluated on Target vessel failure (TVF) (p=<0.001). Hemodialysis was associated with a higher incidence of target vessel failure compared to non-hemodialysis (34.8% vs 14.1%, p<0.001) in patients with deferred revascularization based on FFR >0.80.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: