Completeness of revascularization by FFRCT and prognosis in stable chest pain

Abstract Introduction Major randomized trials of patients with stable chest pain (CP) demonstrated no prognostic benefits of coronary revascularization over optimal medical treatment (OMT). However, in a recent large-scale study, completeness of revascularization was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause death and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI). Purpose To evaluate the association between completeness of revascularization relative to the result of coronary CT angiography (CTA) derived fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) and 3-year prognosis in patients with new onset stable CP and coronary stenosis. Methods Multicenter cohort 3-year follow-up sub-study of 900 patients from the Assessing Diagnostic Value of Non-invasive FFRCT in Coronary Care (ADVANCE) registry at three Danish sites, the “ADVANCE-DK Registry”. All patients had at least one ≥30% coronary stenosis by CTA and underwent subsequent core laboratory FFRCT analysis by HeartFlow. The FFRCT result was abnormal when ≤0.80 (2 cm distal to stenosis). Patients were classified according to completeness of revascularization by FFRCT: 1) completely revascularized (CR-FFRCT), all coronary arteries with an abnormal FFRCT test result revascularized; 2) incompletely revascularized (IR-FFRCT), ≥1 coronary artery with an abnormal FFRCT test result not revascularized. The primary endpoint (PE) was a composite of all-cause death and spontaneous MI. The secondary endpoint (SE) was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and spontaneous MI. Results Patient characteristics are given in Table 1. In total 36 (4.0%) patients suffered a PE (all-cause death, n=24; MI, n=12) and 22 (2.4%) an SE (CV death, n=10; MI, n=12). Overall, an abnormal vs a normal FFRCT test result was associated with an increased risk of both the PE, 6.6% vs 2.1%, relative risk (RR): 3.1; 95% CI: 1.6–6.3, p<0.001 and of the SE, 5.0% vs 0.6%, RR: 8.7; 95% CI: non assessable, p<0.001. In patients with abnormal FFRCT, revascularization vs no revascularization did not reduce the risk of the PE or the SE (data not shown). Patients with IR-FFRCT vs CR-FFRCT had a numerical, but not statistical significantly, increased risk of the PE, 8.6% vs 4.2%, RR: 2.14; 95% CI: 0.87–5.26, p=0.10), and an increased risk of the SE, 7.1% vs 2.4%, RR: 3.13; 95% CI: 1.02–9.63, p=0.04, Figure 1. In CR-FFRCT versus normal FFRCT no difference in the risk of the PE or the SE was observed, Figure 1. Univariate sensitivity analyses performed in the IR-FFRCT group did not reveal any differences in the risk of the PE or the SE after adjustment for neither statin therapy at follow-up (−/+), baseline risk variables (< / ≥3), amount of CAC (< / ≥400), degree of stenosis by CTA (< / ≥50%) nor referral to ICA (−/+). Conclusion In symptomatic patients with coronary stenosis by CTA, incomplete revascularization determined by FFRCT is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared to complete revascularization. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.