Percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy in patients with angina and grey-zone fractional flow reserve values: a randomised clinical trial

Barry Hennigan, Colin Berry, Damien Collison, David Corcoran, Hany Eteiba, Richard Good, Margaret McEntegart, Stuart Watkins, John D McClure, Kenneth Mangion, Thomas Joseph Ford, Mark C Petrie, Stuart Hood, Paul Rocchiccioli, Aadil Shaukat, Mitchell Lindsay, Keith G Oldroyd, Barry Hennigan, Colin Berry, Damien Collison, David Corcoran, Hany Eteiba, Richard Good, Margaret McEntegart, Stuart Watkins, John D McClure, Kenneth Mangion, Thomas Joseph Ford, Mark C Petrie, Stuart Hood, Paul Rocchiccioli, Aadil Shaukat, Mitchell Lindsay, Keith G Oldroyd

Abstract

Introduction: There is conflicting evidence regarding the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with grey zone fractional flow reserve (GZFFR artery) values (0.75-0.80). The prevalence of ischaemia is unknown. We wished to define the prevalence of ischaemia in GZFFR artery and assess whether PCI is superior to optimal medical therapy (OMT) for angina control.

Methods: We enrolled 104 patients with angina with 1:1 randomisation to PCI or OMT. The artery was interrogated with a Doppler flow/pressure wire. Patients underwent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) with follow-up at 3 and 12 months. The primary outcome was angina status at 3 months using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ).

Results: 104 patients (age 60±9 years), 79 (76%) males and 79 (76%) Left Anterior Descending (LAD) stenoses were randomised. Coronary physiology and SAQ were similar. Of 98 patients with stress perfusion MRI data, 17 (17%) had abnormal perfusion (≥2 segments with ≥25% ischaemia or ≥1 segment with ≥50% ischaemia) in the target GZFFR artery. Of 89 patients with invasive physiology data, 26 (28%) had coronary flow velocity reserve <2.0 in the target GZFFR artery. After 3 months of follow-up, compared with patients treated with OMT only, patients treated by PCI and OMT had greater improvements in SAQ angina frequency (21 (28) vs 10 (23); p=0.026) and quality of life (24 (26) vs 11 (24); p=0.008) though these differences were no longer significant at 12 months.

Conclusions: Non-invasive evidence of major ischaemia is uncommon in patients with GZFFR artery. Compared with OMT alone, patients randomised to undergo PCI reported improved symptoms after 3 months but these differences were no longer significant after 12 months.

Trial registration number: NCT02425969.

Keywords: combined pressure and doppler flow coronary wire; fractional flow reserve; percutaneous coronary intervention; stress perfusion MRI.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: There was no industry sponsorship of this trial. CB has undertaken research, consulting and lectures for Abbott Vascular, Opsens and Coroventis based on contracts with The University of Glasgow. KGO has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific and Biosensors. BH has received honoraria from Philips Volcano for consultancy.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
GZFFR flowchart. ‘Screening FFR’ used any pressure wire system for basic FFR assessment without flow indices. All subsequent measurements involved the Combowire device to assess indices of pressure, flow and resistance. FFR, fractional flow reserve; GzFFR, grey zone; OMT, optimal medical therapy; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention and optimal medical therapy group; Pd/Pa, resting pressure gradient; QCA, quantitative coronary angiography; STEMI, ST elevation myocardial infarction.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Consort flow diagram for the GZFFR trial. *One patient died at 65 days postrandomisation following a witnessed fall with traumatic intracranial haemorrhage, another died at 51 days postrandomisation from metastatic lung cancer diagnosed during the MRI performed as part of the study and the third died of pulmonary emboli post resection of a chronic benign meningioma at 84 days postrandomisation. Combowire, combined pressure and Doppler flow wire; FFR, fractional flow reserve; GZFFR, grey zone; OMT, optimal medical therapy; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention and optimal medical therapy group.
Figure 3
Figure 3
This patient had a moderately severe mid left circumflex lesion with GZFFR physiology with reduced CFVR of 1.5 pre-PCI which improved to a CFVR of 4 post-PCI. The stenosis resistance HSR reduced following PCI with improved FFR. GZFFR coronary lesion in mid circumflex indicated by blue arrow before PCI (upper panel) and after PCI with coronary physiology data in the left panel. CFVR, coronary flow velocity reserve; FFR, fractional flow reserve; GZFFR, grey zone; HSR, Hyperaemic Stenosis Resistance Index.

References

    1. Kolh P, Windecker S, Alfonso F, et al. . 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014;46:517–92. 10.1093/ejcts/ezu366
    1. Pijls NHJ, 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;334:1703–8. 10.1056/NEJM199606273342604
    1. Watkins S, McGeoch R, Lyne J, et al. . Validation of magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging with fractional flow reserve for the detection of significant coronary heart disease. Circulation 2009;120:2207–13. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.872358
    1. Li M, Zhou T, Yang L-feng, et al. . Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial magnetic resonance perfusion to diagnose ischemic stenosis with fractional flow reserve as reference: systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:1098–105. 10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.07.011
    1. Pijls NHJ, 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;49:2105–11. 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.01.087
    1. Tonino PAL, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B, et al. . Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the fame study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2816–21. 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.11.096
    1. De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B, et al. . Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI versus Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Disease [Internet], 2012. Available: [Accessed 4 Mar 4 2019].
    1. Fearon WF, Nishi T, De Bruyne B, et al. . Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease: three-year follow-up of the fame 2 trial (fractional flow reserve versus angiography for multivessel evaluation). Circulation 2018;137:480–7. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.031907
    1. Johnson NP, Tóth GG, Lai D, et al. . Prognostic Value of Fractional Flow Reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:1641–54. 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.07.973
    1. Lindstaedt M, Halilcavusogullari Y, Yazar A, et al. . Clinical outcome following conservative vs revascularization therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease and borderline fractional flow reserve measurements. Clin Cardiol 2010;33:77–83. 10.1002/clc.20693
    1. Courtis J, Rodés-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;71:541–8. 10.1002/ccd.21406
    1. Shiono Y, Kubo T, Tanaka A, et al. . Long-Term outcome after deferral of revascularization in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis and Gray-Zone fractional flow reserve. Circ J 2014;79:91–5. 10.1253/circj.CJ-14-0671
    1. Agarwal SK, Kasula S, Edupuganti MM, et al. . Clinical Decision-Making for the Hemodynamic “Gray Zone” (FFR 0.75-0.80) and Long-Term Outcomes. J INVASIVE Cardiol 2017;29:6.
    1. Depta JP, Patel JS, Novak E, et al. . Outcomes of coronary stenoses deferred revascularization for borderline versus Nonborderline fractional flow reserve values. Am J Cardiol 2014;113:1788–93. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.03.004
    1. Yamashita J, Tanaka N, Shindo N, et al. . Seven-year clinical outcomes of patients with moderate coronary artery stenosis after deferral of revascularization based on gray-zone fractional flow reserve. Cardiovasc Interv Ther 2015;30:209–15. 10.1007/s12928-014-0302-4
    1. Adjedj J, De Bruyne B, Floré V, et al. . Significance of intermediate values of fractional flow reserve in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 2016;133:502–8. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018747
    1. Kang D-Y, Ahn J-M, Lee CH, et al. . Deferred vs. performed revascularization for coronary stenosis with grey-zone fractional flow reserve values: data from the IRIS-FFR registry. Eur Heart J 2018;39:1610–9. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy079
    1. Greenwood JP, Ripley DP, Berry C, et al. . Effect of care guided by cardiovascular magnetic resonance, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, or NICE guidelines on subsequent unnecessary angiography rates. JAMA 2016;316:1051 10.1001/jama.2016.12680
    1. Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, et al. . 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease—addenda 2013;32.
    1. van de Hoef TP, Nolte F, EchavarrÍa-Pinto M, et al. . Impact of hyperaemic microvascular resistance on fractional flow reserve measurements in patients with stable coronary artery disease: insights from combined stenosis and microvascular resistance assessment. Heart 2014;100:951–9. 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-305124
    1. Hussain ST, Morton G, De Silva K, et al. . The assessment of ischaemic burden: validation of a functional jeopardy score against cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging. Clin Res Cardiol 2017;106:259–70. 10.1007/s00392-016-1047-0
    1. Spertus JA, Winder JA, Dewhurst TA, et al. . Development and evaluation of the Seattle angina questionnaire: a new functional status measure for coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;25:333–41. 10.1016/0735-1097(94)00397-9
    1. Davies J, Cook C, Piek J, et al. . Coronary physiological parameters at a crossroads. EuroIntervention 2017;13:e145–8. 10.4244/EIJV13I2A20
    1. Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi H-M, et al. . Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018;391:31–40. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32714-9

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir