+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Rationale and design of the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study



Rationale and design of the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study



American Heart Journal 154(4): 632-636



Although its limitations for diagnosing critical coronary artery disease are well described, coronary angiography remains the predominant method for guiding decisions about stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, some have suggested that invasive physiologic guidance may improve decision making. The objective of this multicenter, randomized clinical trial is to compare the efficacy of 2 strategies, one based on angiographic guidance to one based on physiologic guidance with fractional flow reserve (FFR), for deciding which coronary lesions to stent in patients with multivessel coronary disease. Eligible patients must have coronary narrowings > 50% diameter stenosis in > or = 2 major epicardial vessels, > or = 2 of which the investigator feels require drug-eluting stent placement. Patients with previous coronary bypass surgery or left main coronary disease are excluded. Based on angiographic evaluation, the investigator notes the lesions that require stenting. The patient is then randomly assigned to either angiographic guidance or FFR guidance. Patients assigned to angiographic guidance undergo stenting as planned. Patients assigned to FFR guidance first have FFR measured in each diseased vessel and only undergo stenting if the FFR is < or = 0.80. The primary end point of the study is a composite of major adverse cardiac events, including death, myocardial infarction, and repeat coronary revascularization, at 1 year. Secondary end points will include the individual adverse events, cost-effectiveness, quality of life, and 30-day, 6-month, 2-year, and 5-year outcomes. The FAME study will examine for the first time in a large, multicenter, randomized fashion the role of measuring FFR in patients undergoing multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 021639570

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 17892983

DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.012


Related references

Rationale and design of the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) 3 Trial: a comparison of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. American Heart Journal 170(4): 619-626.E2, 2015

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 56(3): 177-184, 2010

Fractional flow reserve in unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction experience from the FAME (Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 4(11): 1183-1189, 2011

The impact of sex differences on fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) substudy. Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 5(10): 1037-1042, 2012

The impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on fractional flow reserve: Insights from the FAME (Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) trial. International Journal of Cardiology 204: 206-210, 2016

The impact of age on fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) trial substudy. International Journal of Cardiology 177(1): 66-70, 2014

Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 55(25): 2816-2821, 2010

Computed tomography perfusion to assess physiological significance of coronary stenosis in the post-FAME era (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation). Journal of the American College of Cardiology 62(16): 1486-1487, 2013

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386(10006): 1853-1860, 2015

Rationale and design of the fractional flow reserve versus angiography. 2007

Rationale and design of the PERFECTION (comparison between stress cardiac computed tomography PERfusion versus Fractional flow rEserve measured by Computed Tomography angiography In the evaluation of suspected cOroNary artery disease) prospective study. Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography 10(4): 330-334, 2017

Rationale and design of the DeFACTO (Determination of Fractional Flow Reserve by Anatomic Computed Tomographic AngiOgraphy) study. Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography 5(5): 301-309, 2012

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (FAMOUS-NSTEMI): rationale and design of a randomized controlled clinical trial. American Heart Journal 166(4): 662-668.E3, 2013