+ 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 age on fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) trial substudy



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



Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved outcomes compared with an angiography-guided strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the effect of age on FFR has not been well-studied. We aimed to evaluate the impact of age on the favorable results of routine FFR-guided PCI for multivessel CAD. We compared 1 year outcomes between FFR-guided PCI and angiography-guided PCI in the 512 patients enrolled in the FAME study <65 years old compared to the 493 patients ≥ 65 years old. We also evaluated the effect of age on the FFR result of varying degrees of visually estimated coronary stenosis. The 1-year rate of death, myocardial infarction or repeat revascularization in the angiography-guided group tended to be higher than in the FFR-guided group for both those patients <65 (17.2% vs. 12.0%, P = 0.098) and those ≥ 65 years old (19.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.111) with no significant interaction based on age (P = 0.920). Older patients had higher FFR in vessels with 50% to 70% stenosis (0.83 ± 0.11 vs. 0.80 ± 0.13, P = 0.028) and in vessels with 71% to 90% stenosis (0.69 ± 0.15 vs. 0.65 ± 0.16, P = 0.002). The proportion of functionally significant lesions (FFR ≤ 0.80) in vessels with 71% to 90% stenosis was significantly lower in elderly compared to younger patients (75.3% vs. 84.1%, P = 0.013). FFR-guided PCI is beneficial regardless of age, however, older patients have fewer functionally significant lesions, despite a similar angiographic appearance.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 059074681

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25499342

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.09.010


Related references

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

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. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 55(25): 2816-2821, 2010

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

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

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