+ 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

The impact of sex differences on fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) substudy



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



This study sought to evaluate the impact of sex differences on fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study demonstrated that FFR-guided PCI improves outcomes compared with an angiography-guided strategy. The role of FFR-guided PCI in women versus men has not been evaluated. We analyzed 2-year data from the FAME study in the 744 men and 261 women with multivessel coronary disease, who were randomized to angiography- or FFR-guided PCI. Statistical comparisons based on sex were stratified by treatment method. Although women were older and had significantly higher rates of hypertension than men did, there were no differences in the rates of major adverse cardiac events (20.3% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.923) and its individual components at 2 years. FFR values were significantly higher in women than in men (0.75 ± 0.18 vs. 0.71 ± 0.17, p = 0.001). The proportion of functionally significant lesions (FFR ≤ 0.80) was lower in women than in men for lesions with 50% to 70% stenosis (21.1% vs. 39.5%, p < 0.001) and for lesions with 70% to 90% stenosis (71.9% vs. 82.0%, p = 0.019). An FFR-guided strategy resulted in similar relative risk reductions for death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization in men and in women. There were no interactions between sex and treatment method for any outcome variables. In comparison with men, angiographic lesions of similar severity are less likely to be ischemia-producing in women. An FFR-guided PCI strategy is equally beneficial in women as it is in men.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 056370355

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23078733

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.06.016


Related references

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

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

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 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

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

Angiography Versus Hemodynamics to Predict the Natural History of Coronary Stenoses: Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation 2 Substudy. Circulation 137(14): 1475-1485, 2018

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

Thirty-month outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided versus conventional multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention. American Journal of Cardiology 96(7): 877-884, 2005

Economic evaluation of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease. Circulation 122(24): 2545-2550, 2010

Fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: where to after FAME 2?. Vascular Health and Risk Management 11: 613-622, 2015

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

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

Fractional flow reserve for coronary bifurcation lesions: can fractional flow reserve-guided side branch intervention strategy improve clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided strategy?. Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 8(4): 547-549, 2015