Association of Lower Fractional Flow Reserve Values With Higher Risk of Adverse Cardiac Events for Lesions Deferred Revascularization Among Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The safety of deferring revascularization based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) during acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is unclear. We evaluated the association of FFR and adverse cardiac events among patients with coronary lesions deferred revascularization based on FFR in the setting of ACS versus non-ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population (674 patients; 816 lesions) was divided into ACS (n=334) and non-ACS (n=340) groups based on the diagnosis when revascularization was deferred based on FFR values >0.80 between October 2002 and July 2010. The association and interaction between FFR and clinical outcomes was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models within each group (mean follow-up of 4.5±2.1 years). Subsequent revascularization of a deferred lesion was classified as a deferred lesion intervention (DLI), whereas the composite of DLI or myocardial infarction (MI) attributed to a deferred lesion was designated as deferred lesion failure (DLF). In the non-ACS group, lower FFR values were not associated with any increase in adverse cardiac events. In the ACS group, every 0.01 decrease in FFR was associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular death, MI, or DLI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.12), MI or DLI (HR, 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.14), DLF (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.18), MI (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.14), and DLI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.18). CONCLUSION: Lower FFR values among ACS patients with coronary lesions deferred revascularization based on FFR are associated with a significantly higher rate of adverse cardiac events. This association was not observed in non-ACS patients.

Risk model for estimating the 1-year risk of deferred lesion intervention following deferred revascularization after fractional flow reserve assessment.

AIMS: Although lesions deferred revascularization following fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment have a low risk of adverse cardiac events, variability in risk for deferred lesion intervention (DLI) has not been previously evaluated. The aim of this study was to develop a prediction model to estimate 1-year risk of DLI for coronary lesions where revascularization was not performed following FFR assessment. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prediction model for DLI was developed from a cohort of 721 patients with 882 coronary lesions where revascularization was deferred based on FFR between 10/2002 and 7/2010. Deferred lesion intervention was defined as any revascularization of a lesion previously deferred following FFR. The final DLI model was developed using stepwise Cox regression and validated using bootstrapping techniques. An algorithm was constructed to predict the 1-year risk of DLI. During a mean (±SD) follow-up period of 4.0 ± 2.3 years, 18% of lesions deferred after FFR underwent DLI; the 1-year incidence of DLI was 5.3%, while the predicted risk of DLI varied from 1 to 40%. The final Cox model included the FFR value, age, current or former smoking, history of coronary artery disease (CAD) or prior percutaneous coronary intervention, multi-vessel CAD, and serum creatinine. The c statistic for the DLI prediction model was 0.66 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.61-0.70). CONCLUSION: Patients deferred revascularization based on FFR have variation in their risk for DLI. A clinical prediction model consisting of five clinical variables and the FFR value can help predict the risk of DLI in the first year following FFR assessment.

Outcomes of coronary stenoses deferred revascularization for borderline versus nonborderline fractional flow reserve values.

Current evidence supports deferral of revascularization for lesions with fractional flow reserve (FFR) values >0.80. The natural history after deferral of revascularization of lesions with borderline FFR values is unknown. This study evaluated the outcomes of patients after deferred revascularization of coronary stenoses based on a borderline FFR value. We retrospectively studied 720 patients with 881 intermediate-severity coronary stenoses who underwent FFR assessment from October 2002 to July 2010 and were deferred revascularization. Patients were divided into gray zone (0.75 to 0.80), borderline (0.81 to 0.85), and nonborderline (>0.85) FFR groups. Any subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting of a deferred stenosis during follow-up was classified as a deferred lesion intervention (DLI). Patient and/or lesion characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the FFR groups using univariate and propensity score-adjusted inverse probability of weighting Cox proportional hazards analyses. During a mean follow-up of 4.5 ± 2.1 years, 157 deferred lesions (18%) underwent DLI by percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 117) or coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 40). No statistically significant differences were observed in clinical outcomes between the gray zone and borderline FFR groups. Lesions with a borderline FFR were associated with a significantly higher risk of DLI compared with lesions with nonborderline FFR values (hazard ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.33, p = 0.007). Lesions deferred revascularization because of a borderline FFR (0.81 to 0.85) were associated with a higher risk of DLI compared with lesions with a nonborderline FFR (>0.85). Further study is needed to determine the optimal management of coronary stenoses with a borderline FFR value.