Key result
FFR-guided complete revascularization cuts major events ~67% versus infarct-related PCI in 3-vessel STEMI.
Why the study?
The impact of disease severity on outcomes after complete revascularization in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease was uncertain.
Does fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization reduce the composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease?
RCT (n=627)
randomized
Does fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization reduce the composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease?
The benefit of FFR-guided complete revascularization in STEMI patients with multivessel disease is primarily driven by patients with 3-vessel disease and severe non-culprit stenoses (≥90%).
Benefit of FFR-guided complete revascularization may be confined to 3-vessel disease with severe nonculprit stenoses; leaves open whether to restrict use pending prospective confirmation.
Background— The impact of disease severity on the outcome after complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease is uncertain. The objective of this post hoc study was to evaluate the impact of number of diseased vessel, lesion location, and severity of the noninfarct-related stenosis on the effect of fractional flow reserve–guided complete revascularization. Methods and Results— In the DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI study (Primary PCI in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: Treatment of Culprit Lesion Only or Complete Revascularization), we randomized 627 ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients to fractional flow reserve–guided complete revascularization or infarct-related percutaneous coronary intervention only. In patients with 3-vessel disease, fractional flow reserve–guided complete revascularization reduced the primary end point (all-cause mortality, reinfarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization; hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17–0.64; P =0.001), with no significant effect in patients with 2-vessel disease (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.47–1.26; P =0.29; P for interaction =0.046). A similar effect was observed in patients with diameter stenosis ≥90% of noninfarct-related arteries (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18–0.62; P =0.001), but not in patients with less severe lesions (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.44–1.19; P =0.21; P for interaction =0.06). The effect was most pronounced in patients with 3-vessel disease and noninfarct-related stenoses ≥90%, and in this subgroup, there was a nonsignificant reduction in the end point of mortality and reinfarction (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.08–1.32; P =0.09). Proximal versus distal location did not influence the benefit from complete revascularization. Conclusions— The benefit from fractional flow reserve–guided complete revascularization in ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease was dependent on the presence of 3-vessel disease and noninfarct diameter stenosis ≥90% and was particularly pronounced in patients with both of these angiographic characteristics. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01960933.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lønborg et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (n=627). Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization vs. Infarct-related percutaneous coronary intervention only was evaluated on All-cause mortality, reinfarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17-0.64, p=0.001). Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization reduced mortality, reinfarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization in STEMI patients with 3-vessel disease (HR 0.33; 95% CI 0.17-0.64).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: