Key result
FFR-guided management is linked to low MACE, whereas refusing revascularization for FFR≤0.8 yields ~41% MACE.
Why the study?
The impact of FFR-guided coronary interventions among Indian patients with intermediate coronary stenosis was not readily available and needed validation.
Does FFR-guided revascularization decision-making improve clinical outcomes in Indian patients with intermediate coronary lesions?
Cohort (n=282)
No
Does FFR-guided revascularization decision-making improve clinical outcomes in Indian patients with intermediate coronary lesions?
Absolute Event Rate: 2.3% vs 3.4%
p-value: p=0.73
FFR-guided revascularization is a safe and effective strategy in Indian patients with intermediate coronary lesions, with deferred patients experiencing similarly low MACE rates as those appropriately revascularized.
Supports FFR-guided decisions in Indian patients; leaves open confirmation via prospective RCTs before practice change.
BACKGROUND: We undertook this study to validate the impact of FFR-guided coronary interventions among Indian patients, which is not readily available as of date. Our patients differ from their western counterparts, both in terms of risk profile (younger, more metabolic syndrome, lipid rich diet) as well as their coronary size. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 282 patients with intermediate stenosis in their coronary arteries, who underwent FFR to assess the functional severity of the lesion. There were 3 groups: Group 1-FFR>0.8 and kept on medical follow-up; Group 2-FFR≤0.8 and underwent revascularisation; and Group 3-FFR≤0.8 and refused to undergo revascularization. 281(99.6%) patients had regular follow-up in our clinic. RESULTS: Median age-57 years (range=28-78). Males=230, 90 patients were in Group 1, 175 in group 2 (PCI in 144 & CABG in 31) and 17 in group 3. Median follow-up of patients was 17.9 months (2 to 56 months). Three patients(3.4%) in Group 1 had MACE (1 STEMI, 2 UA); 4 patients (2.3%) in Group 2 had Non-STE-ACS; 7 patients (41%) in Group 3 had MACE (3 deaths with acute LVF, 2 NSTEMI, 2 STEMI) CONCLUSION: In our experience, MACE events were not higher in patients with FFR>0.8 and kept under medical therapy and were similarly lower in patients with FFR ≤0.8 and underwent revascularisation (p=0.73). Also MACE events were higher in patients with FFR≤0.8 and did not undergo revascularisation compared to other two appropriately treated groups (p=0.03). FFR based revascularization decision appears to be a safe strategy in Indian patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prasad et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease with intermediate coronary lesions (n=282). FFR≤0.8 with revascularization vs. FFR>0.8 with medical therapy was evaluated on MACE (p=0.73). MACE occurred in 2.3% of patients with FFR≤0.8 undergoing revascularization vs 3.4% with FFR>0.8 on medical therapy (p=0.73), but was 41% in those with FFR≤0.8 refusing revascularization (p=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: