The clinical outcome of fractional flow reserve based coronary revascularization strategy of the patients on hemodialysis. (14th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hirobe, K; Otsuki, H; Inagaki, Y; Anaka, K; Nakao, M; Arashi, H; Yamaguchi, J; Hagiwara, N
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 42(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-10-14
• Subjects: Intracoronary Flow and Pressure Measurements; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.2091
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The optimal coronary revascularization strategy for the patients on hemodialysis is yet to be determined. In the real-world practice, we sometimes encounter the rapid deterioration after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to angiographically intermediate but functionally significant stenosis. According to the fractional flow reserve (FFR) based revascularization strategy, the clinical outcome of the deferred lesions is reported to be almost equivalent to that of the lesions received PCI. However, whether the relationship also applies to hemodialysis patients is unclear. Purpose: To assess the clinical outcome of the lesions for which revascularization strategy was determined by FFR in patients with hemodialysis. Methods: Consecutive 147 vessels in 120 patients with hemodialysis whose revascularization strategy was decided according to the FFR were enrolled in this study. We compared the clinical outcomes of the deferred group (FFR ≥0.80, 87 vessels, 78 patients) with the PCI group (FFR<0.80, 60 vessels, 42 patients). The primary endpoint of this study was target vessel failure (TVF) defined as a composite of TV revascularization and myocardial infarction evaluated by per-vessel analysis. The secondary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as all cause death, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization evaluated by per-patient analysis. Results: The median follow-up period was 2.3 years (interquartile range, 1.5–4.0 years). The beseline characteristics of the lesions and patients were well balanced between the 2 treatment groups except for the distribution of target vessels and FFR value. The cumulative TVF rate was not significantly different between the deferred group and PCI group (2-year event rate 26.7% vs. 17.7%; Log-rank p=0.23). The risk of MACE was also not significantly different between two groups (2-year event rate 35% vs. 30%; Log-rank p=0.48). Conclusion: The clinical outcome of the lesions/patients for which received revascularization based on FFR was equivalent to the deferred lesions/patients even in the patients on hemodialysis (2, 129/3, 000). Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: None.