Our mission is to become a worldwide reference for education in the field for all professionals involved in the process to disseminate knowledge & skills of Acute Cardiovascular Care.
Our mission is to promote excellence in clinical diagnosis, research, technical development, and education in cardiovascular imaging in Europe.
Our mission is to promote excellence in research, practice, education and policy in cardiovascular health, primary and secondary prevention.
Our mission is to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease in Europe through percutaneous cardiovascular interventions.
Our mission is to improve the quality of life of the population by reducing the impact of cardiac rhythm disturbances and reduce sudden cardiac death.
Our mission is to improve quality of life and longevity, through better prevention, diagnosis and treatment of heart failure, including the establishment of networks for its management, education and research.
The ESC Working Groups' goal is to stimulate and disseminate scientific knowledge in different fields of cardiology.
The ESC Councils' goal is to share knowledge among medical professionals practising in specific cardiology domains.
OUR MISSION: TO REDUCE THE BURDEN OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
Dr. Bernard De Bruyne
Prof. Udo Sechtem,
By Bernard De Bruyne, (Aalst, Belgium)View Discussant report
Open the PresentationWatch the Webcast
List of Authors: Bernard De Bruyne 1, MD, PhD, William F Fearon 2, MD, Nico HJ Pijls 3, MD, PhD, Emanuele Barbato 1, MD, PhD, Pim Tonino 3, MD, PhD, Zsolt Piroth 4, MD, Nikola Jagic 5, MD, Sven Mobius-Winckler 6, MD Gilles Riouffol 7, MD, PhD, Nils Witt 8, MD, PhD, Petr Kala 9, MD, Philip MacCarthy 10, MD, Thomas Engström 11, MD, Keith Oldroyd 12, MD, Kreton Mavromatis 13, MD, Ganesh Manoharan 14, MD, Peter Verlee 15, MD, Ole Frobert 16, MD, Nick Curzen 17, BM, PhD, Jane B Johnson 18, RN, BSN, Andreas Limacher 19, PhD, Eveline Nüesch 19, PhD, Peter Jüni 19, MD for the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2 (FAME 2) Trial investigators.
1.Cardiovascular Center Aalst, OLV-Clinic Aalst, Belgium2.Stanford University Medical Center and Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Health Care Systems, Stanford,CA3.Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, and Department of Biomedical Enginering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.4.Hungarian Institute of Cardiology, Budapest, Hungary5.Clinical Center Kragujevac, Kragujeva, Serbia6.Heart Center Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany7.Cardiovascular Hospital, Lyon, France8.Karolinska Institutet at Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden9.University and University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic10.King’s College Hospital, London, United Kingdom11.Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark12.Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom13.Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Decatur, GA14.Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom15.Eastern Maine Medical Center, Bangor, ME16.Örebro University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden17.Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom18.St Jude Medical19.Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics,Institute of Social and Preventive
BackgroundWe hypothesized that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to MT in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and functionally significant stenoses, as determined by fractional flow reserve (FFR).MethodsIn 1220 patients with stable CAD, amenable for PCI with drug eluting stents, FFR was assessed in all angiographically visible stenoses. If at least one stenosis had an FFR≤0.80, patients were randomized to FFR-guided PCI plus MT (PCI, n=447) or to MT alone (MT, n=441). If all stenoses had an FFR>0.80, patients received MT and were included in a registry (n=332). ResultsThe rate of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or urgent revascularization at 2 years was lower with PCI than MT (8.1% vs 19.5%, HR 0.39, 95%-CI 0.26-0.57, P<0.001), driven by a lower rate of urgent revascularization (4.0% vs 16.3%, HR 0.23, 95%-CI 0.14-0.38, P<0.001). Death or MI were not significantly different. Urgent revascularizations triggered by an MI or ischemic ECG changes were less frequent with PCI (3.4% vs 7.0%, HR 0.47, 95%-CI 0.25-0.86, p=0.013). In a landmark analysis, the rate of death or MI was lower in the PCI group than in the MT group after the landmark at 7 days (4.6% vs 8.0%, HR 0.56, 95%-CI 0.32-0.97, P=0.037). In registry patients, the rate of the primary endpoint remained low (9.0%). ConclusionsIn patients with stable CAD, FFR-guided PCI improves outcome as compared with MT. Patients with CAD but no ischemia have a favorable outcome with MT.
By Udo Sechtem, FESC (Stuttgart, Germany)See Presenter abstractOpen the presentationWatch the Webcast
Clinical Trial Update Hot Line: Stable CAD and atrial fibrillation
© 2017 European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved