Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation
- PMID: 20579537
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.11.096
Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between angiographic and functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation) study.
Background: It can be difficult to determine on the coronary angiogram which lesions cause ischemia. Revascularization of coronary stenoses that induce ischemia improves a patient's functional status and outcome. For stenoses that do not induce ischemia, however, the benefit of revascularization is less clear.
Methods: In the FAME study, routine measurement of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) was compared with angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The use of the FFR in addition to angiography significantly reduced the rate of all major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. Of the 1,414 lesions (509 patients) in the FFR-guided arm of the FAME study, 1,329 were successfully assessed by the FFR and are included in this analysis.
Results: Before FFR measurement, these lesions were categorized into 50% to 70% (47% of all lesions), 71% to 90% (39% of all lesions), and 91% to 99% (15% of all lesions) diameter stenosis by visual assessment. In the category 50% to 70% stenosis, 35% were functionally significant (FFR <or=0.80) and 65% were not (FFR >0.80). In the category 71% to 90% stenosis, 80% were functionally significant and 20% were not. In the category of subtotal stenoses, 96% were functionally significant. Of all 509 patients with angiographically defined multivessel disease, only 235 (46%) had functional multivessel disease (>or=2 coronary arteries with an FFR <or=0.80).
Conclusions: Angiography is inaccurate in assessing the functional significance of a coronary stenosis when compared with the FFR, not only in the 50% to 70% category but also in the 70% to 90% angiographic severity category.
Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Fractional flow reserve-guided stent therapy for multivessel disease: taking a closer look.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jun 22;55(25):2822-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.12.070. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010. PMID: 20579538 No abstract available.
-
Coronary artery disease: Fractional flow reserve successfully predicts ischemic stenoses.Nat Rev Cardiol. 2010 Sep;7(9):477. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2010.110. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2010. PMID: 20806460 No abstract available.
-
FAME and coronary stent investigations: is there a kink in the wire?J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jan 4;57(1):115-6; author reply 116. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.07.041. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011. PMID: 21185512 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jul 13;56(3):177-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.04.012. Epub 2010 May 28. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010. PMID: 20537493 Clinical Trial.
-
The impact of sex differences on fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) substudy.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Oct;5(10):1037-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.06.016. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012. PMID: 23078733
-
The impact of age on fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) trial substudy.Int J Cardiol. 2014 Nov 15;177(1):66-70. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.09.010. Epub 2014 Sep 20. Int J Cardiol. 2014. PMID: 25499342 Clinical Trial.
-
FFR in bifurcation stenting: what have we learned?EuroIntervention. 2010 Dec;6 Suppl J:J94-8. doi: 10.4244/EIJV6SUPJA15. EuroIntervention. 2010. PMID: 21930499 Review.
-
Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography, Computed Tomography Perfusion, and Computed Tomography-Fractional Flow Reserve in Functional Myocardial Ischemia Assessment Versus Invasive Fractional Flow Reserve.Am J Cardiol. 2015 Nov 1;116(9):1469-78. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.07.078. Epub 2015 Aug 14. Am J Cardiol. 2015. PMID: 26347004 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Diagnostic Value of Magnetocardiography to Detect Abnormal Myocardial Perfusion: A Pilot Study.Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Oct 23;25(10):379. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2510379. eCollection 2024 Oct. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024. PMID: 39484136 Free PMC article.
-
PET measurement of adenosine stimulated absolute myocardial blood flow for physiological assessment of the coronary circulation.J Nucl Cardiol. 2012 Apr;19(2):347-54. doi: 10.1007/s12350-011-9510-9. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012. PMID: 22231036 Review.
-
Role of Fractional-Flow Reserve in Guiding Percutaneous Revascularization in Stable Coronary Artery Disease.Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2015 Sep;17(9):52. doi: 10.1007/s11883-015-0530-9. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2015. PMID: 26202795 Review.
-
Prevalence of pathological FFRCT values without coronary artery stenosis in an asymptomatic marathon runner cohort.Eur Radiol. 2021 Dec;31(12):8975-8982. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08027-0. Epub 2021 May 26. Eur Radiol. 2021. PMID: 34041572 Free PMC article.
-
Differences between automatically detected and steady-state fractional flow reserve.Clin Res Cardiol. 2016 Feb;105(2):127-34. doi: 10.1007/s00392-015-0894-4. Epub 2015 Jul 25. Clin Res Cardiol. 2016. PMID: 26208615
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical