Repository logo
 
Publication

Clinical Events After Deferral of LAD Revascularization Following Physiological Coronary Assessment.

dc.contributor.authorSen, S
dc.contributor.authorAhmad, Y
dc.contributor.authorDehbi, H
dc.contributor.authorHoward, J
dc.contributor.authorIglesias, J
dc.contributor.authorAl-Lamee, R
dc.contributor.authorBaptista, SB, et al.
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-15T10:48:14Z
dc.date.available2019-02-15T10:48:14Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Physicians are not always comfortable deferring treatment of a stenosis in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery because of the perception that there is a high risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The authors describe, using the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) trial, MACE rates when LAD lesions are deferred, guided by physiological assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to establish the safety of deferring treatment in the LAD using FFR or iFR within the DEFINE-FLAIR trial. METHODS: MACE rates at 1 year were compared between groups (iFR and FFR) in patients whose physiological assessment led to LAD lesions being deferred. MACE was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization at 1 year. Patients, and staff performing follow-up, were blinded to whether the decision was made with FFR or iFR. Outcomes were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 872 patients had lesions deferred in the LAD (421 guided by FFR, 451 guided by iFR). The event rate with iFR was significantly lower than with FFR (2.44% vs. 5.26%; adjusted HR: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.95; p = 0.04). This was driven by significantly lower unplanned revascularization with iFR and numerically lower MI (unplanned revascularization: 2.22% iFR vs. 4.99% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.03; MI: 0.44% iFR vs. 2.14% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.07; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: iFR-guided deferral appears to be safe for patients with LAD lesions. Patients in whom iFR-guided deferral was performed had statistically significantly lower event rates than those with FFR-guided deferral.pt_PT
dc.description.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionpt_PT
dc.identifier.citationJ Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Feb 5;73(4):444-453.pt_PT
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.070pt_PT
dc.identifier.issn1558-3597
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.10/2115
dc.language.isoengpt_PT
dc.peerreviewedyespt_PT
dc.publisherElsevierpt_PT
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6354033/pdf/main.pdfpt_PT
dc.subjectCoronary stenosispt_PT
dc.subjectMyocardial fractional flow reservept_PT
dc.titleClinical Events After Deferral of LAD Revascularization Following Physiological Coronary Assessment.pt_PT
dc.typejournal article
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.conferencePlaceNew Yorkpt_PT
oaire.citation.endPage453pt_PT
oaire.citation.startPage444pt_PT
oaire.citation.titleJournal of the American College of Cardiology.pt_PT
oaire.citation.volume73pt_PT
rcaap.rightsopenAccesspt_PT
rcaap.typearticlept_PT

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019.pdf
Size:
510.43 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: