Why the study?
The applicability of resting indices to guide noninfarct-related artery revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction was unknown.
Does FFR compared to resting Pd/Pa improve the prediction of target vessel myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization in nonculprit lesions of STEMI patients?
Does FFR compared to resting Pd/Pa improve the prediction of target vessel myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization in nonculprit lesions of STEMI patients?
In STEMI patients with nonculprit lesions, FFR and resting Pd/Pa have similar overall prognostic value for target vessel events at 36 months, but FFR is superior for identifying lesions that can be safely deferred when the two indices are discrepant.
Pd/Pa shows moderate discordance with FFR post-STEMI PCI; leaves open whether resting indices safely guide nonculprit revascularization.
Background: The applicability of resting indices to guide noninfarct-related artery revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction is unknown. Methods: We analyzed the correlation and prognostic value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and resting distal coronary to aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) in all patients of the Compare-Acute trial in whom, after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the noninfarct-related artery was interrogated by both and treated medically. The treating cardiologist was blinded to these values. The primary end point was the composite of target vessel (interrogated noninfarct-related artery) related nonfatal target vessel myocardial infarction and target vessel repeat revascularization at 36 months. Results: Five hundred seventeen patients (665 vessels) were included. On receiver-operating characteristic analysis, the optimal Pd/Pa cut off for FFR≤0.80 was 0.905 ( C statistic: 0.894). The diagnostic accuracy of Pd/Pa was 80.15% (95% CI, 76.91%–83.12%) with respect to FFR. During the 36-month follow-up, 130 target vessel revascularization and 14 target vessel myocardial infarction occurred. FFR and Pd/Pa had a diagnostic accuracy to predict these events of 62.86% (95% CI, 59.06%–66.54%) and 56.84% (95% CI, 52.98%–60.64%), respectively ( P =0.20). When they were discrepant, FFR was significantly better than Pd/Pa in identifying which vessels could be safely deferred ( P =0.048). Conclusions: Immediately after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention, resting Pd/Pa has a diagnostic accuracy of 80% with respect to FFR measured in the noninfarct-related artery. FFR is not significantly superior in predicting target vessel myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization during 36 months of follow-up but, in case FFR and Pd/Pa are discrepant, FFR is superior in identifying which nonculprit vessels can be safely deferred. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01399736.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2022 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: