No abstract

No abstract

Background-Advances in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents have dramatically improved results of these procedures. The optimal treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease is uncertain given the lack of prospective, randomized data reflecting current practice. This study represents a "real-world" evaluation of current technology in the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Methods and Results-A total of 1680 patients undergoing revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease were identified. Of these, 1080 patients were treated for 2-vessel disease (196 CABG and 884 PCI) and 600 for 3-vessel disease (505 CABG and 95 PCI). One-year mortality, cerebrovascular events, Q-wave myocardial infarction, target vessel failure, and composite major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were compared between the CABG and PCI cohorts. Outcomes were adjusted for baseline covariates and reported as hazard ratios.

ObjectivesThe study sought to determine the coronary flow characteristics of angiographically intermediate stenoses classified as discordant by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR).BackgroundDiscordance between FFR and iFR occurs in up to 20% of cases. No comparisons have been reported between the coronary flow characteristics of FFR/iFR discordant and angiographically unobstructed vessels.MethodsBaseline and hyperemic coronary flow velocity and coronary flow reserve (CFR) were compared across 5 vessel groups: FFR+/iFR+ (108 vessels, n = 91), FFR–/iFR+ (28 vessels, n = 24), FFR+/iFR– (22 vessels, n = 22), FFR–/iFR– (208 vessels, n = 154), and an unobstructed vessel group (201 vessels, n = 153), in a post hoc analysis of the largest combined pressure and Doppler flow velocity registry (IDEAL [Iberian-Dutch-English] collaborators study).ResultsFFR disagreed with iFR in 14% (50 of 366). Baseline flow velocity was similar across all 5 vessel groups, including the unobstructed vessel group (p = 0.34 for variance). In FFR+/iFR– discordants, hyperemic flow velocity and CFR were similar to both FFR–/iFR– and unobstructed groups; 37.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 26.1 to 50.4) cm/s vs. 40.0 [IQR: 29.7 to 52.3] cm/s and 42.2 [IQR: 33.8 to 53.2] cm/s and CFR 2.36 [IQR: 1.93 to 2.81] vs. 2.41 [IQR: 1.84 to 2.94] and 2.50 [IQR: 2.11 to 3.17], respectively (p > 0.05 for all). In FFR–/iFR+ discordants, hyperemic flow velocity, and CFR were similar to the FFR+/iFR+ group; 28.2 (IQR: 20.5 to 39.7) cm/s versus 23.5 (IQR: 16.4 to 34.9) cm/s and CFR 1.44 (IQR: 1.29 to 1.85) versus 1.39 (IQR: 1.06 to 1.88), respectively (p > 0.05 for all).ConclusionsFFR/iFR disagreement was explained by differences in hyperemic coronary flow velocity. Furthermore, coronary stenoses classified as FFR+/iFR– demonstrated similar coronary flow characteristics to angiographically unobstructed vessels.

No abstract