Yoshihisa Kanaji3; Yoshinori Kanno3; Masahiro Hada3; Haruhito Yuki3; Masao Yamaguchi3; Hiroaki Ohya3; Yohei Sumino3; Hidenori Hirano3; Tomoki Horie3; Eisuke Usui3; Akinori Sugano3; Tomoyo Sugiyama3; Tadashi Murai3; Tetsumin Lee4; Ki Hong Choi2; Doyeon Hwang7; Jonghanne Park8; Ji-Hyun Jung9; Hyung Yoon Kim10; Hae Won Jung11; Yun-Kyeong Cho12; Hyuck-Jun Yoon12; Young Bin Song2; Joo-Yong Hahn2; Joon-Hyung Doh13; Chang-Wook Nam12; Eun-Seok Shin14; Seung-Ho Hur12; Hernán Mejía-Rentería15; Francesco Lauri15; Sonoka Goto15; Fernando Macaya15; Angela McInerney15; Giacomo Gravina15; Rafael Vera15; Nieves Gonzalo15; Pilar Jimenez-Quevedo15; Ivan Nuñez-Gil15; Pablo Salinas15; Luis Nombela-Franco15; Maria del Trigo15; Antonio Fernández-Ortiz15; Carlos Macaya15;
1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea 3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan, Japan 4. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan 5. Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea; Institute on Aging, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 6. Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain; Centro Nacional de Investigaciónes Cardiovasculares Carlos III (CNIC), Madrid, Spain 7. Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea 8. Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea; Department of Internal Medicine, Naju National Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Naju, Korea 9. Sejong General Hospital, Sejong Heart Institute, Bucheon, Korea 10. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, Korea 11. Department of Cardiology, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea 12. Department of Medicine, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Daegu, South Korea 13. Department of Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang, South Korea 14. Division of Cardiology, Ulsan Hospital, Ulsan, Korea and Department of Cardiology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, South Korea 15. Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
As a public service to our readership, this article - peer reviewed by the Editors of EuroIntervention and external reviewers - has been published immediately upon acceptance as it was received in the last round of revision. The content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.
Please note that supplementary movies are not available online at this stage. Once a paper is published in its edited and formatted form, it will be accompanied online by any supplementary movies.
To read the full content of this article, please log in to download the PDF.
Aims: To investigate the effect of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on vessel-related major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) according to coronary flow capacity (CFC) status in stable coronary lesions.
Methods and results: From a global, multicenter registry of comprehensive physiological assessment, a total of 1397 patients (1694 vessels) were analyzed. Low CFC was defined for lesions with low coronary flow reserve (CFR) and low inverse of hyperemic mean transit time (1/hTmn). Pre-defined definition of CFC was assessed first in a multivariable marginal COX proportional model with the interaction term between CFC status and PCI (performed or not), and then the optimal definition of CFC was explored. The p-value for the interaction between pre-defined low CFC and PCI was 0.067. Next, we computed the optimal definition of CFC to maximize the interaction, where HR of PCI was 0.278 (95% CI: 0.103–0751) and 1.393 (95% CI: 0.783–2.478) for lesions low and normal CFC, respectively.
Conclusions: FFR-guided PCI was associated with reduced incidence of MACE in low CFC but not in normal CFC lesions. CFC information may be leveraged in combination with FFR for optimizing the indication for PCI by reducing potentially unbeneficial PCI.