Usefulness of Routine Fractional Flow Reserve for Clinical Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes.

Importance Approximately one-third of patients considered for coronary revascularization have diabetes, which is a major determinant of clinical outcomes, often influencing the choice of the revascularization strategy. The usefulness of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide treatment in this population is understudied and has been questioned. Objective To evaluate the usefulness and rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of integrating FFR in management decisions for patients with diabetes who undergo coronary angiography. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used data from the PRIME-FFR study derived from the merger of the POST-IT study (Portuguese Study on the Evaluation of FFR-Guided Treatment of Coronary Disease [March 2012-November 2013]) and R3F study (French Study of FFR Integrated Multicenter Registries Implementation of FFR in Routine Practice [October 2008-June 2010]), 2 prospective multicenter registries that shared a common design. A population of all-comers for whom angiography disclosed ambiguous lesions was analyzed for rates, patterns, and outcomes associated with management reclassification, including revascularization deferral, in patients with vs without diabetes. Data analysis was performed from June to August 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures Death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization (MACE) at 1 year. Results Among 1983 patients (1503 [77%] male; mean [SD] age, 65 [10] years), 701 had diabetes, and FFR was performed for 1.4 lesions per patient (58.2% of lesions in the left anterior descending artery; mean [SD] stenosis, 56% [11%]; mean [SD] FFR, 0.81 [0.01]). Reclassification by FFR was high and similar in patients with and without diabetes (41.2% vs 37.5%, P = .13), but reclassification from medical treatment to revascularization was more frequent in the former (142 of 342 [41.5%] vs 230 of 730 [31.5%], P = .001). There was no statistical difference between the 1-year rates of MACE in reclassified (9.7%) and nonreclassified patients (12.0%) (P = .37). Among patients with diabetes, FFR-based deferral identified patients with a lower risk of MACE at 12 months (25 of 296 [8.4%]) compared with those undergoing revascularization (47 of 257 [13.1%]) (P = .04), and the rate was of the same magnitude of the observed rate among deferred patients without diabetes (7.9%, P = .87). Status of insulin treatment had no association with outcomes. Patients (6.6% of the population) in whom FFR was disregarded had the highest MACE rates regardless of diabetes status. Conclusions and Relevance Routine integration of FFR for the management of coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes may be associated with a high rate of treatment reclassification. Management strategies guided by FFR, including revascularization deferral, may be useful for patients with diabetes.

[1]  G. Rioufol,et al.  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 , 2014, Circulation.

[2]  J. Ottervanger,et al.  Clinical outcomes of deferred revascularisation using fractional flow reserve in patients with and without diabetes mellitus , 2016, Cardiovascular Diabetology.

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

[4]  Maarten L. Simoons,et al.  The third universal definition of myocardial infarction , 2013 .

[5]  S. Kische,et al.  Impact of Routine Invasive Physiology at Time of Angiography in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease on Reclassification of Revascularization Strategy: Results From the DEFINE REAL Study. , 2018, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[6]  E. Barbato,et al.  Visual and Quantitative Assessment of Coronary Stenoses at Angiography Versus Fractional Flow Reserve: The Impact of Risk Factors , 2017, Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging.

[7]  N. Pijls,et al.  Influence of routine assessment of fractional flow reserve on decision making during coronary interventions. , 2007, The American journal of cardiology.

[8]  Pronóstico a largo plazo de diferir la intervención coronaria en diabéticos sobre la base de la reserva fraccional de flujo , 2008 .

[9]  M. Costa,et al.  Impact of Routine Fractional Flow Reserve Evaluation During Coronary Angiography on Management Strategy and Clinical Outcome: One-Year Results of the POST-IT Multicenter Registry , 2016, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

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

[11]  M. Bell,et al.  Relation between fractional flow reserve value of coronary lesions with deferred revascularization and cardiovascular outcomes in non-diabetic and diabetic patients. , 2016, International journal of cardiology.

[12]  Douglas Weaver,et al.  Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. , 2012, Circulation.

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

[14]  A. Jeremias,et al.  Diabetes does not impact the diagnostic performance of contrast-based fractional flow reserve: insights from the CONTRAST study , 2017, Cardiovascular Diabetology.

[15]  E. Omerovic,et al.  Instantaneous Wave‐free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Third universal definition of myocardial infarction , 2013, Nature Reviews Cardiology.

[17]  M. Shishehbor,et al.  Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes , 2013 .

[18]  K. Takazawa,et al.  Application of Pressure-Derived Myocardial Fractional Flow Reserve in Assessing the Functional Severity of Coronary Artery Stenosis in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus , 2004 .

[19]  J. Ottervanger,et al.  Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Deferred Versus Complete Revascularization in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus. , 2016, The American journal of cardiology.

[20]  A. Jeremias,et al.  Use of the Instantaneous Wave‐free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  E. Kızıltunç,et al.  The reliability of fractional flow reserve measurement in patients with diabetes mellitus , 2009, Coronary artery disease.

[22]  P. Stella,et al.  Deferral vs. performance of percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally non-significant coronary stenosis: 15-year follow-up of the DEFER trial. , 2015, European heart journal.

[23]  Akshay S. Desai,et al.  Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  B. Dimitrov,et al.  Does Routine Pressure Wire Assessment Influence Management Strategy at Coronary Angiography for Diagnosis of Chest Pain?: The RIPCORD Study , 2014, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[25]  M. Hellmich,et al.  Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus and glucose control on fractional flow reserve measurements in intermediate grade coronary lesions , 2014, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[26]  M. Kern,et al.  Deferred lesion failure in diabetes: A truly bad actor , 2017, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.