Repository logo

Browsing by Author "Van Belle, E"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Impact of Routine Fractional Flow Reserve on Management Decision and 1-Year Clinical Outcome of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: PRIME-FFR (Insights From the POST-IT [Portuguese Study on the Evaluation of FFR-Guided Treatment of Coronary Disease] and R3F [French FFR Registry] Integrated Multicenter Registries - Implementation of FFR [Fractional Flow Reserve] in Routine Practice)
    Publication . Van Belle, E; Bravo Baptista, S; Raposo, L; Henderson, J; Rioufol, G; Santos, L; Pouillot, C; Ramos, R; Cuisset, T; Calé, R; Teiger, E; Jorge, E; Belle, L; Machado, C; Barreau, D; Costa, M; Hanssen, M; Oliveira, E; Besnard, C; Costa, J; Dallongeville, J; Pipa, J; Sideris, G; Fonseca, N; Bretelle, C; Guardado, J; Lhoest, N; Silva, B; Barnay, P; Sousa, MJ; Leborgne, L; Silva, JC; Vincent, F; Rodrigues, A; Seca, L; Fernandes, R; Dupouy, P
    Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is not firmly established as a guide to treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Primary goals were to evaluate the impact of integrating FFR on management decisions and on clinical outcome of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angiography, as compared with patients with stable coronary artery disease. Methods and results: R3F (French FFR Registry) and POST-IT (Portuguese Study on the Evaluation of FFR-Guided Treatment of Coronary Disease), sharing a common design, were pooled as PRIME-FFR (Insights From the POST-IT and R3F Integrated Multicenter Registries - Implementation of FFR in Routine Practice). Investigators prospectively defined management strategy based on angiography before performing FFR. Final decision after FFR and 1-year clinical outcome were recorded. From 1983 patients, in whom FFR was prospectively used to guide treatment, 533 sustained ACS (excluding acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction). In ACS, FFR was performed in 1.4 lesions per patient, mostly in left anterior descending (58%), with a mean percent stenosis of 58±12% and a mean FFR of 0.82±0.09. In patients with ACS, reclassification by FFR was high and similar to those with non-ACS (38% versus 39%; P=NS). The pattern of reclassification was different, however, with less patients with ACS reclassified from revascularization to medical treatment compared with those with non-ACS (P=0.01). In ACS, 1-year outcome of patients reclassified based on FFR (FFR against angiography) was as good as that of nonreclassified patients (FFR concordant with angiography), with no difference in major cardiovascular event (8.0% versus 11.6%; P=0.20) or symptoms (92.3% versus 94.8% angina free; P=0.25). Moreover, FFR-based deferral to medical treatment was as safe in patients with ACS as in patients with non-ACS (major cardiovascular event, 8.0% versus 8.5%; P=0.83; revascularization, 3.8% versus 5.9%; P=0.24; and freedom from angina, 93.6% versus 90.2%; P=0.35). These findings were confirmed in ACS explored at the culprit lesion. In patients (6%) in whom the information derived from FFR was disregarded, a dire outcome was observed. Conclusions: Routine integration of FFR into the decision-making process of ACS patients with obstructive coronary artery disease is associated with a high reclassification rate of treatment (38%). A management strategy guided by FFR, divergent from that suggested by angiography, including revascularization deferral, is safe in ACS.
    2017-06Journal article Open access Show more
  • OPTImized Coronary Interventions EXplaIn the BEst CliNical OutcomEs (OPTI-XIENCE) Study. Rationale and Study Design
    Publication . Moreno, R; Bravo Baptista, S; Valencia, J; Gomez-Menchero, A; Bouisset, F; Ruiz-Arroyo, JR; Bento, A; Besutti, M; Jimenez-Valero, S; Rivero-Santana, B; Olhmann, P; Santos, M; Vaquerizo, B; Cuissetm, T; Lemoine, J; Pinar, E; Fiarresga, A; Urbano, C; Marliere, S; Braga, C; Amat-Santos, I; Morgado, G; Sarnago, F; Telleria, M; Van Belle, E; Díaz-Fernandez, J; Caballero Borrego, J; Amabile, N; Meneveau, N
    Introduction: Clinical events may occur after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly in complex lesions and complex patients. The optimization of PCI result, using pressure guidewire and intracoronary imaging techniques, may reduce the risk of these events. The hypothesis of the present study is that the clinical outcome of patients with indication of PCI and coronary stent implantation that are at high risk of events can be improved with an unrestricted use of intracoronary tools that allow PCI optimization. Methods and analysis: Observational prospective multicenter international study, with a follow-up of 12 months, including 1064 patients treated with a cobalt‑chromium everolimus-eluting stent. Inclusion criteria include any of the following: Lesion length > 28 mm; Reference vessel diameter < 2.5 mm or > 4.25 mm; Chronic total occlusion; Bifurcation with side branch ≥2.0 mm;Ostial lesion; Left main lesion; In-stent restenosis; >2 lesions stented in the same vessel; Treatment of >2 vessels; Acute myocardial infarction; Renal insufficiency; Left ventricular ejection fraction <30 %; Staged procedure. The control group will be comprised by a similar number of matched patients included in the "extended risk" cohort of the XIENCE V USA study. The primary endpoint will be the 1-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF) (composite of ischemia-driven TLR, myocardial infarction (MI) related to the target vessel, or cardiac death related to the target vessel). Secondary endpoints will include overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, TVR, TLR, target vessel failure, and definitive or probable stent thrombosis at 1 year. Implications: The ongoing OPTI-XIENCE study will contribute to the growing evidence supporting the use of intra-coronary imaging techniques for stent optimization in patients with complex coronary lesions.
    2024Journal article Open access Show more
  • Usefulness of Routine Fractional Flow Reserve for Clinical Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes
    Publication . Van Belle, E; Cosenza, A; Bravo Baptista, S; Vincent, F; Henderson, J; Santos, L; Ramos, R; Pouillot, C; Calé, R; Cuisset, T; Jorge, E; Teiger, E; Machado, C; Belle, L; Costa, M; Barreau, D; Oliveira, E; Hanssen, M; Costa, J; Besnard, C; Nunes, L; Dallongeville, J; Sideris, G; Bretelle, C; Fonseca, N; Lhoest, N; Guardado, J; Silva, B; Sousa, MJ; Barnay, P; Silva, JC; Leborgne, L; Rodrigues, A; Porouchani, S; Seca, L; Fernandes, R; Dupouy, P; Raposo, L
    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.
    2020Journal article Open access Show more