Key result
In patients following PCI, having FFR > 0.80 and low IMR was associated with a lower rate of death, MI, or revascularization compared to FFR ≤ 0.80 (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.27-0.92; p=0.026).
Why the study?
The prognostic implication of microvascular dysfunction assessed by IMR in patients without residual obstructive CAD with non-flow limiting FFR (>0.80) following PCI was unclear.
Does microvascular dysfunction (high IMR) increase the risk of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with non-flow limiting FFR after PCI?
Cohort (n=570)
Does microvascular dysfunction (high IMR) increase the risk of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with non-flow limiting FFR after PCI?
Hazard Ratio: 0.49 (95% CI 0.27–0.92)
p-value: p=0.026
Microvascular dysfunction (high IMR) following PCI is associated with adverse clinical events even when epicardial FFR is non-flow limiting (>0.80), suggesting the utility of interrogating the microvasculature for risk stratification.
IMR may refine post-PCI risk stratification beyond FFR alone; leaves open whether microvascular assessment should guide therapy.
BACKGROUND: We sought to investigate prognostic implication of microvascular dysfunction as assessed by the index of microcirculatory index (IMR) in patients without residual obstructive CAD with non-flow limiting fractional flow reserve (FFR) (>0.80) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: A total of 570 patients who had both post-PCI FFR and IMR values were included in the present analysis; of these, 65 patients had FFR ≤ 0.80 and 505 had FFR > 0.80. Of the 505 patients with FFR > 0.80, 137 had high IMR and 368 had low IMR. The primary outcome of the present analysis is a composite of all-cause death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization. Impaired microvascular function was defined as IMR ≥ 25 (high IMR). RESULTS: During a median follow-up duration of 4.0 years, those with FFR > 0.80 and low IMR demonstrated lower rate or primary outcome event than those with FFR ≤ 0.80 (hazard ratio 0.49 [95% confidence interval 0.27-0.92], p = 0.026) and those with FFR > 0.80 and high IMR (hazard ratio 1.60 [0.99-2.16], p = 0.056). The patients with FFR > 0.80 and IMR ≥ 25 had similar rate of primary outcome event compared with those with FFR ≤ 0.80 (p = 0.49). CONCLUSION: Microvascular dysfunction following PCI is not rare and is associated with adverse events even in the setting of a non-flow limiting FFR; these results suggest that when performing coronary physiologic assessment following PCI, interrogating not only the epicardial vessel, but also the microvasculature is useful for the risk stratification in patients undergoing PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nishi et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=570). FFR > 0.80 and low IMR (<25) vs. FFR ≤ 0.80 was evaluated on Composite of all-cause death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.92, p=0.026). In patients following PCI, having FFR > 0.80 and low IMR was associated with a lower rate of death, MI, or revascularization compared to FFR ≤ 0.80 (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.27-0.92; p=0.026).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: