Javier Escaned,Alejandro Travieso,Hakim-Moulay Dehbi,Sukhjinder S Nijjer,Sayan Sen,Ricardo Petraco,Manesh Patel,Patrick W Serruys,Justin Davies,
{"title":"以分数血流储备或瞬时无波比引导的冠状动脉血运重建:DEFINE FLAIR 随机临床试验的 5 年随访。","authors":"Javier Escaned,Alejandro Travieso,Hakim-Moulay Dehbi,Sukhjinder S Nijjer,Sayan Sen,Ricardo Petraco,Manesh Patel,Patrick W Serruys,Justin Davies,","doi":"10.1001/jamacardio.2024.3314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Importance\r\nThe differences between the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in the long term are unknown.\r\n\r\nObjective\r\nTo compare long-term outcomes of iFR- and FFR-based strategies to guide revascularization.\r\n\r\nDesign, Setting, and Participants\r\nThe DEFINE-FLAIR multicenter study randomized patients with coronary artery disease to use either iFR or FFR as a pressure index to guide revascularization. Patients from 5 continents with coronary artery disease and angiographically intermediate severity stenoses who underwent hemodynamic interrogation with pressure wires were included. These data were analyzed from March, 13, 2014, through April, 27, 2021.\r\n\r\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\r\nFive-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization), as well as the individual components of the combined end point.\r\n\r\nResults\r\nAt 5 years of follow-up, no significant differences were found between the iFR (mean age [SD], 65.5 [10.8] years; 962 male [77.5%]) and FFR (mean age [SD], 65.2 [10.6] years; 929 male [74.3%]) groups in terms of MACE (21.1% vs 18.4%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.99-1.42; P = .06). While all-cause death was higher among patients randomized to iFR, it was not driven by myocardial infarction (6.3% vs 6.2% in the FFR study arm; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.74-1.38; P = .94) or unplanned revascularization (11.9% vs 12.2% in the FFR group; HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.78-1.23; P = .87). Furthermore, patients in whom revascularization was deferred on the basis of iFR or FFR had similar MACE in both study arms (17.9% in the iFR group vs 17.5% in the FFR group; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79-1.35; P = .80) with similar rates of the components of MACE, including all-cause death. On the contrary, in patients who underwent revascularization after physiologic interrogation, the incidence of MACE was higher in the iFR group (24.6%) compared with the FFR group (19.2%) (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.72; P = .01).\r\n\r\nConclusions and relevance\r\nAt 5-year follow up, an iFR based-strategy was not statistically different than an FFR strategy to guide revascularization in terms of MACE, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization.\r\n\r\nTrial Registration\r\nClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02053038.","PeriodicalId":14657,"journal":{"name":"JAMA cardiology","volume":"89 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":14.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coronary Revascularization Guided With Fractional Flow Reserve or Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio: A 5-Year Follow-Up of the DEFINE FLAIR Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Javier Escaned,Alejandro Travieso,Hakim-Moulay Dehbi,Sukhjinder S Nijjer,Sayan Sen,Ricardo Petraco,Manesh Patel,Patrick W Serruys,Justin Davies,\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamacardio.2024.3314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Importance\\r\\nThe differences between the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in the long term are unknown.\\r\\n\\r\\nObjective\\r\\nTo compare long-term outcomes of iFR- and FFR-based strategies to guide revascularization.\\r\\n\\r\\nDesign, Setting, and Participants\\r\\nThe DEFINE-FLAIR multicenter study randomized patients with coronary artery disease to use either iFR or FFR as a pressure index to guide revascularization. Patients from 5 continents with coronary artery disease and angiographically intermediate severity stenoses who underwent hemodynamic interrogation with pressure wires were included. These data were analyzed from March, 13, 2014, through April, 27, 2021.\\r\\n\\r\\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\\r\\nFive-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization), as well as the individual components of the combined end point.\\r\\n\\r\\nResults\\r\\nAt 5 years of follow-up, no significant differences were found between the iFR (mean age [SD], 65.5 [10.8] years; 962 male [77.5%]) and FFR (mean age [SD], 65.2 [10.6] years; 929 male [74.3%]) groups in terms of MACE (21.1% vs 18.4%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.99-1.42; P = .06). While all-cause death was higher among patients randomized to iFR, it was not driven by myocardial infarction (6.3% vs 6.2% in the FFR study arm; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.74-1.38; P = .94) or unplanned revascularization (11.9% vs 12.2% in the FFR group; HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.78-1.23; P = .87). Furthermore, patients in whom revascularization was deferred on the basis of iFR or FFR had similar MACE in both study arms (17.9% in the iFR group vs 17.5% in the FFR group; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79-1.35; P = .80) with similar rates of the components of MACE, including all-cause death. On the contrary, in patients who underwent revascularization after physiologic interrogation, the incidence of MACE was higher in the iFR group (24.6%) compared with the FFR group (19.2%) (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.72; P = .01).\\r\\n\\r\\nConclusions and relevance\\r\\nAt 5-year follow up, an iFR based-strategy was not statistically different than an FFR strategy to guide revascularization in terms of MACE, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization.\\r\\n\\r\\nTrial Registration\\r\\nClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02053038.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA cardiology\",\"volume\":\"89 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":14.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2024.3314\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2024.3314","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Coronary Revascularization Guided With Fractional Flow Reserve or Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio: A 5-Year Follow-Up of the DEFINE FLAIR Randomized Clinical Trial.
Importance
The differences between the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in the long term are unknown.
Objective
To compare long-term outcomes of iFR- and FFR-based strategies to guide revascularization.
Design, Setting, and Participants
The DEFINE-FLAIR multicenter study randomized patients with coronary artery disease to use either iFR or FFR as a pressure index to guide revascularization. Patients from 5 continents with coronary artery disease and angiographically intermediate severity stenoses who underwent hemodynamic interrogation with pressure wires were included. These data were analyzed from March, 13, 2014, through April, 27, 2021.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Five-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization), as well as the individual components of the combined end point.
Results
At 5 years of follow-up, no significant differences were found between the iFR (mean age [SD], 65.5 [10.8] years; 962 male [77.5%]) and FFR (mean age [SD], 65.2 [10.6] years; 929 male [74.3%]) groups in terms of MACE (21.1% vs 18.4%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.99-1.42; P = .06). While all-cause death was higher among patients randomized to iFR, it was not driven by myocardial infarction (6.3% vs 6.2% in the FFR study arm; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.74-1.38; P = .94) or unplanned revascularization (11.9% vs 12.2% in the FFR group; HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.78-1.23; P = .87). Furthermore, patients in whom revascularization was deferred on the basis of iFR or FFR had similar MACE in both study arms (17.9% in the iFR group vs 17.5% in the FFR group; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79-1.35; P = .80) with similar rates of the components of MACE, including all-cause death. On the contrary, in patients who underwent revascularization after physiologic interrogation, the incidence of MACE was higher in the iFR group (24.6%) compared with the FFR group (19.2%) (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.72; P = .01).
Conclusions and relevance
At 5-year follow up, an iFR based-strategy was not statistically different than an FFR strategy to guide revascularization in terms of MACE, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02053038.
JAMA cardiologyMedicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
45.80
自引率
1.70%
发文量
264
期刊介绍:
JAMA Cardiology, an international peer-reviewed journal, serves as the premier publication for clinical investigators, clinicians, and trainees in cardiovascular medicine worldwide. As a member of the JAMA Network, it aligns with a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications.
Published online weekly, every Wednesday, and in 12 print/online issues annually, JAMA Cardiology attracts over 4.3 million annual article views and downloads. Research articles become freely accessible online 12 months post-publication without any author fees. Moreover, the online version is readily accessible to institutions in developing countries through the World Health Organization's HINARI program.
Positioned at the intersection of clinical investigation, actionable clinical science, and clinical practice, JAMA Cardiology prioritizes traditional and evolving cardiovascular medicine, alongside evidence-based health policy. It places particular emphasis on health equity, especially when grounded in original science, as a top editorial priority.