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

BACKGROUND In the Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study, fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for up to 2 years of follow-up. The aim in this study was to investigate whether the favourable clinical outcome with the FFR-guided PCI in the FAME study persisted over a 5-year follow-up. METHODS The FAME study was a multicentre trial done in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI or FFR-guided PCI. Before randomisation, stenoses requiring PCI were identified on the angiogram. Patients allocated to angiography-guided PCI had revascularisation of all identified stenoses. Patients allocated to FFR-guided PCI had FFR measurements of all stenotic arteries and PCI was done only if FFR was 0·80 or less. No one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events at 1 year, and the data for the 5-year follow-up are reported here. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00267774. FINDINGS After 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 31% of patients (154 of 496) in the angiography-guided group versus 28% (143 of 509 patients) in the FFR-guided group (relative risk 0·91, 95% CI 0·75-1·10; p=0·31). The number of stents placed per patient was significantly higher in the angiography-guided group than in the FFR-guided group (mean 2·7 [SD 1·2] vs 1·9 [1·3], p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION The results confirm the long-term safety of FFR-guided PCI in patients with multivessel disease. A strategy of FFR-guided PCI resulted in a significant decrease of major adverse cardiac events for up to 2 years after the index procedure. From 2 years to 5 years, the risks for both groups developed similarly. This clinical outcome in the FFR-guided group was achieved with a lower number of stented arteries and less resource use. These results indicate that FFR guidance of multivessel PCI should be the standard of care in most patients. FUNDING St Jude Medical, Friends of the Heart Foundation, and Medtronic.

[1]  P. Serruys,et al.  Unrestricted randomised use of two new generation drug-eluting coronary stents: 2-year patient-related versus stent-related outcomes from the RESOLUTE All Comers trial , 2011, The Lancet.

[2]  D. Berman,et al.  Comparison of the Short‐Term Survival Benefit Associated With Revascularization Compared With Medical Therapy in Patients With No Prior Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Stress Myocardial Perfusion Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography , 2003, Circulation.

[3]  U. Siebert,et al.  Rationale and design of the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study. , 2007, American heart journal.

[4]  D. Berman,et al.  Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. , 1998, Circulation.

[5]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  William Wijns,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  Nikola Jagic,et al.  Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  Uwe Siebert,et al.  Economic Evaluation of Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel Disease , 2010, Circulation.

[9]  Guido Germano,et al.  Optimal Medical Therapy With or Without Percutaneous Coronary Intervention to Reduce Ischemic Burden: Results From the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) Trial Nuclear Substudy , 2008, Circulation.

[10]  L. Shaw,et al.  Prognostic value of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT , 2004, Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.

[11]  Nikola Jagic,et al.  Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  Sankey V. Williams,et al.  2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Ass , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  D. Watson,et al.  Comparison between angiography and fractional flow reserve versus single-photon emission computed tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging for determining lesion significance in patients with multivessel coronary disease. , 2007, The American journal of cardiology.

[14]  U. Siebert,et al.  Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  Guido Germano,et al.  Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. , 2011, European heart journal.

[16]  Helmut Baumgartner,et al.  2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous , 2014, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[17]  Uwe Siebert,et al.  Clinical ResearchInterventional CardiologyFractional 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 , 2010 .

[18]  D. Berman,et al.  Predicting outcome in the COURAGE trial (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation): coronary anatomy versus ischemia. , 2014, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[19]  Jing Li,et al.  Long-term outcomes of fractional flow reserve-guided vs. angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practice. , 2013, European heart journal.

[20]  Gregg W Stone,et al.  Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  B. De Bruyne,et al.  Functional SYNTAX score for risk assessment in multivessel coronary artery disease. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.