4.7 Article

Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 78, Issue 19, Pages 1875-1885

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.08.061

Keywords

coronary artery disease; coronary revascularization strategy; fractional flow reserve

Funding

  1. French Govern-ment
  2. Hospices Civils de Lyon

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The FUTURE trial investigated whether a treatment strategy based on FFR was superior to a traditional strategy in the treatment of multivessel CAD, and found no significant difference in rates of major adverse cardiac events or death at 1-year follow-up between the two groups.
BACKGROUND There is limited evidence that fractional flow reserve (FFR) is effective in guiding therapeutic strategy in multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) beyond prespecified percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary graft surgery candidates. OBJECTIVES The FUTURE (FUnctional Testing Underlying coronary REvascularization) trial aimed to evaluate whether a treatment strategy based on FFR was superior to a traditional strategy without FFR in the treatment of multivessel CAD. METHODS The FUTURE trial is a prospective, randomized, open-label superiority trial. Multivessel CAD candidates were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment strategy based on FFR in all stenotic ($50%) coronary arteries or to a traditional strategy without FFR. In the FFR group, revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or surgery) was indicated for FFR #0.80 lesions. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. RESULTS The trial was stopped prematurely by the data safety and monitoring board after a safety analysis and 927 patients were enrolled. At 1-year follow-up, by intention to treat, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events rates between groups (14.6% in the FFR group vs 14.4% in the control group; hazard ratio: 0.97; 95% confidence interval: 0.69-1.36; P = 0.85). The difference in all-cause mortality was nonsignificant, 3.7% in the FFR group versus 1.5% in the control group (hazard ratio: 2.34; 95% confidence interval: 0.97-5.18; P = 0.06), and this was confirmed with a 24 months' extended follow-up. FFR significantly reduced the proportion of revascularized patients, with more patients referred to exclusively medical treatment (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS In patients with multivessel CAD, we did not find evidence that an FFR-guided treatment strategy reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death at 1-year follow-up. (Functional Testing Underlying Coronary Revascularisation; NCT01881555) (J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;78:1875-1885) (c) 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available