Key result
FFR-guided PCI cuts major events ~59% vs angiography guidance in severe non-culprit lesions.
Why the study?
The benefit of FFR-guided PCI for noninfarct-related artery lesions with angiographically severe stenosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction was unclear.
Does FFR-guided PCI reduce death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization compared to angiography-guided PCI in patients with AMI and multivessel disease?
RCT (n=562)
open-label
randomly allocated
Yes
Does FFR-guided PCI reduce death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization compared to angiography-guided PCI in patients with AMI and multivessel disease?
Hazard Ratio: 0.41 (95% CI 0.22–0.8)
Absolute Event Rate: 8.5% vs 19.2%
p-value: p=0.008
FFR-guided non-culprit revascularization offers superior clinical outcomes to angiography-guided strategy primarily in AMI patients with severe (≥70%) non-culprit lesions and non-culprit LAD involvement.
Supports FFR-guided PCI for non-culprit stenoses ≥70% in AMI; extends FRAME-AMI to QCA severity subgroups.
BACKGROUND: The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for noninfarct-related artery (IRA) lesions with angiographically severe stenosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction is unclear. METHODS: Among 562 patients from the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infraction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) who were randomly allocated into either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions, the current study evaluated the relationship between non-IRA stenosis measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and the efficacy of FFR-guided PCI. The incidence of the primary end point (death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) was compared between FFR- and angiography-guided PCI according to non-IRA stenosis severity (QCA stenosis ≥70% or <70%). RESULTS: A total of 562 patients were assigned to FFR-guided (n=284) versus angiography-guided PCI (n=278). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary end point occurred in 14 of 181 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 31 of 197 patients with angiography-guided PCI among patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (8.5% versus 19.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.22–0.80]; P =0.008), while occurred in 4 of 103 patients with FFR-guided PCI and 9 of 81 patients with angiography-guided PCI among those with QCA stenosis <70% (3.9% versus 11.1%; P =0.315). There was no significant interaction between treatment strategy and non-IRA stenosis severity ( P for interaction=0.636). FFR-guided PCI was associated with the reduction of death and myocardial infarction in both patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (6.7% versus 15.1%; P =0.008) and those with QCA stenosis <70% (1.0% versus 9.6%; P =0.042) compared with angiography-guided PCI. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, FFR-guided PCI tended to have a lower risk of primary end point than angiography-guided PCI regardless of non-IRA stenosis severity without significant interaction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seung et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease (n=562). Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention vs. Angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention was evaluated on Composite of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization in patients with QCA stenosis ≥70% (hazard ratio, 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.80, p=0.008). In patients with acute myocardial infarction, FFR-guided PCI reduced the primary composite endpoint by 59% compared to angiography-guided PCI among those with non-culprit QCA stenosis ≥70%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: