Angiography Versus Hemodynamics to Predict the Natural History of Coronary Stenoses: Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation 2 Substudy
An erratum to this article was published (Circulation, 29 May 2018 ↗)
Authors' conclusion
In patients with stable coronary disease, physiology (FFR) is a more important determinant of the natural history of coronary stenoses than anatomy (DS).
Study context
- Population
- Patients with stable CAD in whom no revascularization was performed (FAME 2)
- Participants
- 607 patients
- Comparison
- Stenoses classified by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and angiographic diameter stenosis (DS) concordance or mismatch
- Primary endpoint
- VOCE: cardiac death, vessel-related MI, vessel-related urgent and not urgent revascularization
- Follow-up
- 2 years
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
VOCE
Hazard ratio (95% CI)P value
Positive mismatch vs Negative mismatchVOCE higher in positive mismatch
0.38(0.21–0.67)
P = 0.001Positive concordance vs Positive mismatchFFR≤0.80; no significant difference
0.77(0.57–1.09)
P = 0.149Negative mismatch vs Negative concordanceFFR>0.80; no significant difference
1.89(0.96–3.74)
P = 0.067- VOCE highest in positive concordance, lowest in negative concordance (log rank X2=80.96)
- P = 0.001
Original publication
Angiography Versus Hemodynamics to Predict the Natural History of Coronary Stenoses: Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation 2 Substudy. Circulation. Published 21 November 2017. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it