+ 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

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



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



The aim of this study was to study whether there is a difference in benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR) guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in multivessel coronary disease in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), compared with stable angina (SA). The use of FFR to guide PCI has been well established for patients with SA. Its use in patients with UA or NSTEMI has not been investigated prospectively. In the FAME (Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study 1,005 patients with multivessel disease amenable to PCI were included and randomized to either angiography-guided PCI of all lesions ≥50% or FFR-guided PCI of lesions with an FFR ≤0.80. Patients admitted for UA or NSTEMI with positive troponin but total creatine kinase <1,000 U/l were eligible for inclusion. We determined 2-year major adverse cardiac event rates of these patients and compared it with stable patients. Of 1,005 patients, 328 had UA or NSTEMI. There was no evidence for heterogeneity among the subgroups for any of the outcome variables (all p values >0.05). Using FFR to guide PCI resulted in similar risk reductions of major adverse cardiac events and its components in patients with UA or NSTEMI, compared with patients with SA (absolute risk reduction of 5.1% vs. 3.7%, respectively, p = 0.92). In patients with UA or NSTEMI, the number of stents was reduced without increase in hospital stay or procedure time and with less contrast use, in similarity to stable patients. The benefit of using FFR to guide PCI in multivessel disease does not differ between patients with UA or NSTEMI, compared with patients with SA.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 036264561

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 22115657

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2011.08.008


Related references

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

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 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

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

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 137(5): 480-487, 2018

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

Rationale and design of the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study. American Heart Journal 154(4): 632-636, 2007

Angiographic Versus Functional Severity of Coronary Artery Stenoses in the FAME Study: Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation. Yearbook of Cardiology 2011: 210-212, 2011

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

Impact of microvascular obstruction on the assessment of coronary flow reserve, index of microcirculatory resistance, and fractional flow reserve after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 64(18): 1894-1904, 2015

Usefulness of fractional flow reserve measurements to defer revascularization in patients with stable or unstable angina pectoris, non-ST-elevation and ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction, or atypical chest pain. American Journal of Cardiology 98(3): 289-297, 2006

Accuracy and usefulness of noninvasive fractional flow reserve from computed tomographic coronary angiography: comparison with myocardial perfusion imaging, echocardiographic coronary flow reserve, and invasive fractional flow reserve. Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics 32(1): 66-71, 2017

Impact of Right Atrial Pressure on Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements: Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve and Myocardial Fractional Flow Reserve in 1,600 Coronary Stenoses. Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 9(5): 453-459, 2016

Impact of accuracy of fractional flow reserve to reduction of microvascular resistance after intracoronary adenosine in patients with angina pectoris or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. American Journal of Cardiology 113(9): 1461-1467, 2014