- Journal List
- Glob Cardiol Sci Pract
- v.2015(3); 2015
- PMC4633574
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Glob Cardiol Sci Pract. 2015; 2015(3): 32.
Published online 2015 Oct 15. doi:10.5339/gcsp.2015.32
PMCID: PMC4633574
PMID: 26779512
Ahmed M. ElGuindy*
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Abstract
Contrary to its central role in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) remains largely restricted to patients in whom medical treatment fails to control symptoms, or those with a large area of myocardium at risk and/or high risk findings on non-invasive testing.1,2 These recommendations are based on a number of studies – the largest of which is COURAGE – that failed to show any reduction in mortality or myocardial infarction (MI) with PCI compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT) in this group of patients.3 A possible limitation in these studies was relying on visual assessment of angiographic stenoses (which is now well-known to be imprecise) to determine lesions responsible for myocardial ischemia. Non-invasive stress testing – including imaging – may also be inaccurate in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.4,5 These limitations have inadvertently led to the inclusion of patients with non-ischemic lesions in these studies, which may have diluted any potential benefit with PCI. Given the superiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in identifying ischemic lesions compared to angiography, Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2 (FAME 2) investigators hypothesized that when guided by FFR, PCI plus medical therapy would be superior to medical therapy alone in patients with SIHD.
Keywords: FAME 2, fractional flow reserve, stable ischemic heart disease
Study design
FAME 2 trial randomized patients with SIHD and one or more stenoses with FFR ≤ 0.80 to PCI plus OMT or to OMT alone. Patients were enrolled in the registry if they did not have FFR values less than 0.80 in any of the stenoses seen on their angiograms. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, non-fatal MI and urgent revascularization. Patient recruitment was stopped prematurely after randomizing 888 patients (originally targeting 1623) at the request of an independent data and safety monitoring board as a result of a highly significant difference in the incidence rates of the composite primary end-point between both groups.6 The study's design in detail, as well as early results, have previously been discussed in the Journal.7 The investigators published 2-year follow-up results late last year in the New England Journal of Medicine (Figure 1).8
Figure 1.
Kaplan–Meier curves for the landmark analyses. Shown are the cumulative incidences of the primary end point (a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization) (Panel A) and of death or myocardial infarction (Panel B) in the two study groups, stratified on the basis of a landmark point at 7 days after randomization (vertical dashed line). Hazard ratios for PCI versus medical therapy were calculated separately for events that occurred within 7 days and those that occurred between 8 days and the end of follow-up at 2 years. Data for the first 7 days are not included in the period after 7 days. The insets show the data for days 0 to 7 on an expanded y axis. P values for interaction were calculated from tests of heterogeneity between time periods. Hazard ratios below 1.00 denote a lower incidence of the primary end point in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group. Reproduced from De Bruyne et al. [8].
Results and discussion
At two years, the rate of the primary end point was significantly lower in the PCI group compared to the OMT group (8.1% vs. 19.5%, hazard ratio with PCI =0.39; 95% CI =0.26 – 0.57; p<0.001). This reduction was primarily driven by a lower rate of urgent revascularization in the PCI group, with approximately one half of those triggered by myocardial infarction or ischemic electrocardiographic changes (Table 1). Restricting analysis to the latter subgroup also revealed a lower rate of urgent revascularization with PCI compared to OMT (3.4% vs. 7.0%, p=0.01). To exclude pericprocedural MI, a landmark analysis showed lower rates of death or MI between 8 days and two years in the PCI group (4.6% vs. 8%, p=0.04). The composite primary end point occurred in 9% in patients enrolled in the registry.
Table 1
Clinical end points and triggers of urgent revascularization.
| End point | PCI (n=447) | Medical therapy (n=441) | Hazard ratio | P value |
| Primary composite of death, MI, or urgent revascularization | 8.1% | 19.5% | 0.39 (0.26–0.57) | <0.001 |
| Death from any cause | 1.3% | 1.8% | 0.74 (0.26–2.14) | 0.58 |
| MI | 5.8% | 6.8% | 0.85 (0.50–1.45) | 0.56 |
| Urgent revascularization | 4.0% | 16.3% | 0.23 (0.14–0.38) | <0.001 |
| Triggered by clinical features only | 0.7% | 9.8% | 0.07(0.02–0.21) | <0.001 |
| Triggered by MI or ECG changes | 3.4% | 7.0% | 0.47(0.25–0.86) | 0.01 |
| Death or MI | 6.5% | 8.2% | 0.79 (0.49–1.29) | 0.35 |
Open in a separate window
Two-year results from FAME 2 confirm the earlier message from the same study: when second-generation drug eluting stents are used and PCI is restricted to functionally significant lesions, the need for urgent revascularization is significantly reduced compared to medical therapy alone. It is also plausible that this strategy reduces other hard clinical end points (i.e. death or MI). The latter possibility is supported by the landmark analysis that excluded periprocedural MI, which is known to be carry a better prognosis compared to spontaneous MI.9,10 Limitations of FAME 2 including its premature termination and non-blinded design (which may have influenced the decision to perform PCI to a known functionally significant stenosis during follow-up) have previously been addressed. However, the lack of blinding is unlikely to affect the overall conclusion in light of the results of the landmark analysis where only deaths or myocardial infarctions were analyzed. In addition, the higher rate of events observed in the OMT group compared to patients enrolled in the registry cannot be explained by the lack of blinding. These results emphasize the importance of accurate identification of the functional significance of coronary stenoses in patients with SIHD.
What have we learned?
FFR-guided PCI in patients with SIHD using second-generation drug-eluting stents reduces the need for urgent revascularization, and possibly death and MI. On the other hand, patients with hemodynamically non-significant stenosis (defined as FFR >0.80) have excellent prognosis with medical treatment alone, regardless of the angiographic appearance of their coronary lesions.
References
1. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, Berra K, Blankenship JC, Dallas AP, Douglas PS, Foody JM, Gerber TC, Hinderliter AL, King SB, Kligfield PD, Krumholz HM, Kwong RY, Lim MJ, Linderbaum JA, Mack MJ, Munger MA, Prager RL, Sabik JF, Shaw LJ, Sikkema JD, Smith CR, Jr, Smith SC, Jr, Spertus JA, Williams SV, American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American College of Physicians; American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons 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 Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012;60:e44–e164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, Arden C, Budaj A, Bugiardini R, Crea F, Cuisset T, Di Mario C, Ferreira JR, Gersh BJ, Gitt AK, Hulot JS, Marx N, Opie LH, Pfisterer M, Prescott E, Ruschitzka F, Sabaté M, Senior R, Taggart DP, van der Wall EE, Vrints CJ, ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines, Zamorano JL, Achenbach S, Baumgartner H, Bax JJ, Bueno H, Dean V, Deaton C, Erol C, fa*gard R, Ferrari M, Hasdai D, Hoes AW, Kirchhof P, Knuuti, Kolh P, Lancellotti P, Linhart A, Nihoyannopoulos P, Piepoli MF, Ponikowski P, Sirnes PA, Tamargo JL, Tendera M, Torbicki A, Wijns W, Windecker S, Document Reviewers, Knuuti J, Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Claeys MJ, Donner-Banzhoff N, Erol C, Frank H, Funck-Brentano C, Gaemperli O, Gonzalez-Juanatey JR, Hamilos M, Hasdai D, Husted S, James SK, Kervinen K, Kolh P, Kristensen SD, Lancellotti P, Maggioni AP, Piepoli MF, Pries AR, Romeo F, Rydén L, Simoons ML, Sirnes PA, Steg PG, Timmis A, Wijns W, Windecker S, Yildirir A, Zamorano JL. ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur. Heart J. 2013;34:2949–3003. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, Knudtson M, Dada M, Casperson P, Harris CL, Chaitman BR, Shaw L, Gosselin G, Nawaz S, Title LM, Gau G, Blaustein AS, Booth DC, Bates ER, Spertus JA, Berman DS, Mancini GB, Weintraub WS, COURAGE Trial Research Group Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007;356:1503–1516. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Park SJ, Ahn JM, Park GM, Cho YR, Lee JY, Kim WJ, Han S, Kang SJ, Park DW, Lee SW, Kim YH, Lee CW, Mintz GS, Park SW. Trends in the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with the routine incorporation of fractional flow reserve in real practice. Eur. Heart J. 2013;34:3353–3361. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Toth G, Hamilos M, Pyxaras S, Mangiacapra F, Nelis O, De Vroey F, Di Serafino L, Muller O, Van Mieghem C, Wyffels E, HeyndrickxG R, Bartunek J, Vanderheyden M, Barbato E, Wijns W, De Bruyne B. Evolving concepts of angiogram: fractional flow reserve discordances in 4000 coronary stenoses. Eur. Heart J. 2014;35:2831–2838. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B, Barbato E, Tonino PAL, Piroth Z, Jagic N, Möbius-Winkler S, Rioufol G, Witt N, Kala P, MacCarthy P, Engström T, Oldroyd KG, Mavromatis K, Manoharan G, Verlee P, Frobert O, Curzen N, Johnson JB, Jüni P, Fearon WF. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;367:991–1001. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. ElGuindy AM, Bonow RO. FAME 2 – The best initial strategy for patients with stable coronary artery disease: Do we have an answer at last? Glob. Cardiol. Sci. Pract. 2012;18 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NHJ, Barbato E, Tonino P, Piroth Z, Jagic N, Mobius-Winckler S, Rioufol G, Witt N, Kala P, MacCarthy P, Engström T, Oldroyd K, Mavromatis K, Manoharan G, Verlee P, Frobert O, Curzen N, Johnson JB, Limacher A, Nüesch E, Jüni P. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;371:1208–1217. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Prasad A, Herrmann J. Myocardial infarction due to percutaneous coronary intervention. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011;364:453–464. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Damman P, Wallentin L, Fox KA, Windhausen F, Hirsch A, Clayton T, Poco*ck SJ, Lagerqvist B, Tijssen JG, de Winter RJ. Long-term cardiovascular mortality after procedure-related or spontaneous myocardial infarction in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from the FRISC II, ICTUS, and RITA-3 tri. Circulation. 2012;125:568–576. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Global Cardiology Science & Practice are provided here courtesy of Magdi Yacoub Institute
