Skip to main content
PMC home page
Clinical Cardiology logoLink to Clinical Cardiology
. 2010 Feb 23;33(2):77–83. doi: 10.1002/clc.20693

Clinical Outcome Following Conservative vs Revascularization Therapy in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Borderline Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements

Michael Lindstaedt 1,✉, Yasemin Halilcavusogullari 1, Aydan Yazar 1, Tim Holland‐Letz 2, Waldemar Bojara 1, Andreas Mügge 1, Alfried Germing 1
PMCID: PMC6653098  PMID: 20186987

Abstract

Background

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in the so‐called gray‐zone range of ≥ 0.75 and ⩽0.80 are associated with uncertainty concerning the guidance of patient therapy. It is unclear whether any difference in clinical outcome exists when revascularization treatment of FFR‐evaluated lesions in this borderline range is deferred or performed. The objective of this study is to compare the clinical outcome of these patients with respect to their recommended treatment strategy.

Methods

Out of a single center database of 900 consecutive patients with stable coronary artery disease, 97 patients with borderline FFR measurements were identified and included in the study. The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization) and the presence of angina were evaluated at follow‐up.

Results

A total of 48 patients were deferred from revascularization and 49 patients underwent revascularization. There was no difference in risk profile between these groups. At a mean follow‐up of 24±16 months, event‐free survival in the deferred group was significantly better regarding overall MACE, combined rate of cardiac death, and MI, as well as MACE related to the FFR‐evaluated vessel. No difference with regard to the presence of angina was observed.

Conclusions

Patients with coronary lesions in the borderline FFR range can be deferred from revasculariza‐tion without putting them at increased risk for major adverse events. Revascularization may be considered in the course of therapy on an individual basis if typical angina persists or worsens despite maximal medical treatment. Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (319.5 KB).

References

  • 1. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary‐artery stenoses. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 1703–1708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Silber S, Albertsson P, Aviles FF, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2005; 26: 804–847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Berger A, Botman KJ, Maccarthy PA, et al. Long‐term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve‐guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 438–442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. De Bruyne B, Hersbach F, Pijls NH, et al. Abnormal epicardial coronary resistance in patients with diffuse atherosclerosis but “normal” coronary angiography. Circulation 2001; 104: 2401–2406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Kern MJ. Is the coronary physiology of bypass grafts different from that of the native coronary artery? Comment on the “Hemodynamic evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft lesions using fractional flow reserve.” Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 72: 486–487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Koo BK, Kang HJ, Youn TJ, et al. Physiologic assessment of jailed side branch lesions using fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 633–637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Leesar MA, Abdul‐Baki T, Akkus NI, et al. Use of fractional flow reserve versus stress perfusion scintigraphy after unstable angina. Effect on duration of hospitalization, cost, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41: 1115–1121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Lindstaedt M. Patient stratification in left main coronary artery disease—rationale from a contemporary perspective. Int J Cardiol 2008; 130: 326–334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Lopez‐Palop R, Pinar E, Lozano I, et al. Utility of the fractional flow reserve in the evaluation of angiographically moderate in‐stent restenosis. Eur Heart J 2004; 25: 2040–2047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Marques KM, Knaapen P, Boellaard R, et al. Hyperaemic microvascular resistance is not increased in viable myocardium after chronic myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 2320–2325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Lee TH, Boucher CA. Clinical practice. Noninvasive tests in patients with stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1840–1845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Rieber J, Jung P, Erhard I, et al. Comparison of pressure measurement, dobutamine contrast stress echocardiography and SPECT for the evaluation of intermediate coronary stenoses. The COMPRESS trial. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent 2004; 6: 142–147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Rieber J, Huber A, Erhard I, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease: a comparison with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 1465–1471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Kern MJ, Lerman A, Bech JW, et al. Physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation 2006; 114: 1321–1341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5‐year follow‐up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49: 2105–2111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Rieber J, Jung P, Koenig A, et al. Five‐year follow‐up in patients after therapy stratification based on intracoronary pressure measurement. Am Heart J 2007; 153: 403–409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Fearon WF, Takagi A, Jeremias A, et al. Use of fractional myocardial flow reserve to assess the functional significance of intermediate coronary stenoses. Am J Cardiol 2000; 86: 1013–1014, A10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Bartunek J, et al. Fractional flow reserve in patients with prior myocardial infarction. Circulation 2001; 104: 157–162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Legalery P, Schiele F, Seronde MF, et al. One‐year outcome of patients submitted to routine fractional flow reserve assessment to determine the need for angioplasty. Eur Heart J 2005; 26: 2623–2629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2000; 284: 3043–3045. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Alpert JS, Thygesen K, Antman E, et al. Myocardial infarction redefined—a consensus document of The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 959–969. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Potvin JM, Rodes‐Cabau J, Bertrand OF, et al. Usefulness of fractional flow reserve measurements to defer revascularization in patients with stable or unstable angina pectoris, non‐ST‐elevation and ST‐elevation acute myocardial infarction, or atypical chest pain. Am J Cardiol 2006; 98: 289–297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Courtis J, Rodes‐Cabau J, Larose E, et al. Comparison of medical treatment and coronary revascularization in patients with moderate coronary lesions and borderline fractional flow reserve measurements. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 71: 541–548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Chamuleau SA, Meuwissen M, Koch KT, et al. Usefulness of fractional flow reserve for risk stratification of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and an intermediate stenosis. Am J Cardiol 2002; 89: 377–380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Casella G, Leibig M, Schiele TM, et al. Are high doses of intracoronary adenosine an alternative to standard intravenous Titcoloradenosine for the assessment of fractional flow reserve? Am Heart J 2004; 148: 590–595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Lavi S, Rihal CS, Yang EH, et al. The effect of drug eluting stents on cardiovascular events in patients with intermediate lesions and borderline fractional flow reserve. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007; 70: 525–531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Davies RF, Goldberg AD, Forman S, et al. Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) study two‐year follow‐up: outcomes of patients randomized to initial strategies of medical therapy versus revascularization. Circulation 1997; 95: 2037–2043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 213–224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1503–1516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical Cardiology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES