Why the study?
The long-term outcomes of patients undergoing FFR assessment of coronary lesions while awaiting TAVI and the safety of intracoronary adenosine in severe AS are unknown.
Does an FFR-guided strategy reduce major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events compared to an angiography-guided strategy in patients with severe aortic stenosis awaiting TAVI?
Cohort (n=1,023)
Does an FFR-guided strategy reduce major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events compared to an angiography-guided strategy in patients with severe aortic stenosis awaiting TAVI?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In patients with severe aortic stenosis awaiting TAVI, an FFR-guided strategy for CAD assessment did not significantly reduce long-term MACCEs compared to an angiography-guided strategy, though intracoronary adenosine was safe.
Background: The long-term outcomes of patients undergoing functional assessment of coronary lesions with fractional flow reserve (FFR) while awaiting transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are unknown. Data on the safety of intracoronary adenosine use in this setting are scarce. The objectives of this study were to describe (1) the long-term outcomes based on the coronary artery disease (CAD) assessment strategy used and (2) the safety of intracoronary adenosine in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Methods: 1023 patients with severe AS awaiting TAVI were included. Patients were classified according to their CAD assessment strategy: angiography guided or FFR guided. Patients were further subdivided according to the decision to proceed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): angiography-guided PCI (375/1023), angiography-guided no-PCI (549/1023), FFR-guided PCI (50/1023), and FFR-guided no-PCI (49/1023). Patients were followed up for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). Following intracoronary adenosine, a single adverse event occurred. Conclusions: In this population, intracoronary adenosine is safe and well tolerated. We found no significant benefit to an FFR-guided strategy compared with an angiography-guided strategy with respect to MACCEs. Although clinically compelling, avoiding the procedural risks of PCI by deferring the intervention in functionally insignificant lesions failed to show a statistically significant benefit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benseba et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Severe aortic stenosis (n=1,023). FFR-guided CAD assessment vs. Angiography-guided CAD assessment was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) (p== 0.999).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: