Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Intermediate Coronary Artery Disease Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Versus Intravascular Ultrasound Guided

Objectives This study sought to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of a fractional flow reserve (FFR) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided PCI for intermediate coronary lesions. Background Both FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI strategies have been reported to be safe and effective in intermediate coronary lesions. Methods The study included 167 consecutive patients, with intermediate coronary lesions evaluated by FFR or IVUS (FFR-guided, 83 lesions vs. IVUS-guided, 94 lesions). Cutoff value of FFR in FFR-guided PCI was 0.80, whereas that for minimal lumen cross sectional area in IVUS-guided PCI was 4.0 mm(2). The primary outcome was defined as a composite of major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 1 year after the index procedure. Results Baseline percent diameter stenosis and lesion length were similar in both groups (51 +/- 8% and 24 +/- 12 mm in the FFR group vs. 52 +/- 8% and 24 +/- 13 mm in the IVUS group, respectively). However, the IVUS-guided group underwent revascularization therapy significantly more often (91.5% vs. 33.7%, p < 0.001). No significant difference was found in major adverse cardiac event rates between the 2 groups (3.6% in FFR-guided PCI vs. 3.2% in IVUS-guided PCI). Independent predictors for performing intervention were guiding device: FFR versus IVUS (relative risk [RR]: 0.02); left anterior descending coronary artery versus non-left anterior descending coronary artery disease (RR: 5.60); and multi- versus single-vessel disease (RR: 3.28). Conclusions Both FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI strategy for intermediate coronary artery disease were associated with favorable outcomes. The FFR-guided PCI reduces the need for revascularization of many of these lesions. (J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2010;3:812-7) (c) 2010 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation