Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) of intermediate stenosis in native coronary artery is safe and associated with better clinical outcomes as compared with an angiography-guided PCI. It is unknown whether this applies to coronary artery bypass grafts (CABGs).
Methods: We included 223 patients with CABG and with stable or unstable angina and an intermediate stenosis involving an arterial or a venous graft. Patients were divided into 2 groups: FFR guided (n = 65, PCI performed in case of FFR ≤0.80) and angio guided (n = 158, PCI performed based on angiographic evaluation). Primary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event, defined as death, myocardial infarction, target vessel failure, and cerebrovascular accident (CVA).
Results: The 2 groups were similar in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 23 patients (35%) of the FFR-guided group and 90 patients (57%) of the angio-guided group (P < .01). In the FFR-guided group, PCI was more often performed in arterial grafts as compared with the angio-guided group (16 [70%] vs 12 [13%], respectively; P < .01). Follow-up was obtained in 96% of patients at a median of 3.8 years (1.6-4.0 years). At multivariate analysis, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rate was significantly lower in the FFR-guided group as compared with the angio-guided group (18 [28%] vs 77 [51%], hazard ratio 0.33 [0.11-0.96], P = .043]. Procedure costs were overall reduced in the FFR-guided group (€2240 ± €652 vs €2416 ± €522, P = .03).
Conclusions: An FFR-guided PCI of intermediate stenosis in bypass grafts is safe and results in better clinical outcomes as compared with an angio-guided PCI. This clinical benefit is achieved with a significant overall reduction in procedural costs.
Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.