+ 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 left ventricular ejection fraction on fractional flow reserve: Insights from the FAME (Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) trial



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



Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) significantly improves outcomes compared with angio-guided PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, there is a theoretical concern that in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) FFR may be less accurate and FFR-guided PCI less beneficial. From the FAME (Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) trial database, we compared FFR values between patients with reduced EF (both ≤ 40%, n = 90 and ≤ 50%, n = 252) and preserved EF (> 40%, n = 825 and > 50%, n = 663) according to the angiographic stenosis severity. We also compared differences in 1 year outcomes between FFR- vs. angio-guided PCI in patients with reduced and preserved EF. Both groups had similar FFR values in lesions with 50-70% stenosis (p = 0.49) and with 71-90% stenosis (p = 0.89). The reduced EF group had a higher mean FFR compared to the preserved EF group across lesions with 91-99% stenosis (0.55 vs. 0.50, p = 0.02), although the vast majority of FFR values remained ≤ 0.80. There was a similar reduction in the composite end point of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization with FFR-guided compared to angio-guided PCI for both the reduced (14.5% vs. 19.0%, relative risk = 0.76, p = 0.34) and the preserved EF group (13.8 vs. 17.0%, relative risk = 0.81, p = 0.25). The results were similar with an EF cutoff of 40%. Reduced EF has no influence on the FFR value unless the stenosis is very tight, in which case a theoretically explainable, but clinically irrelevant overestimation might occur. As a result, FFR-guided PCI remains beneficial regardless of EF.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 059075982

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26670174

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.11.169


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

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

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

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. 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

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

Outcome impact of coronary revascularization strategy reclassification with fractional flow reserve at time of diagnostic angiography: insights from a large French multicenter fractional flow reserve registry. Circulation 129(2): 173-185, 2014

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

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

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