Long-term survival in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with or without intracoronary pressure wire guidance: a report from SCAAR

Intracoronary pressure wire measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) provide decision-making guidance during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, limited data exist on the impact of FFR/iFR on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with stable angina, unstable angina (UA)/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), or STEMI.

We used data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) on all patients in Sweden undergoing PCI (with or without FFR/iFR guidance) for stable angina, UA/NSTEMI, or STEMI between January 2005 and March 2018. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and the secondary endpoints were stent thrombosis or restenosis and periprocedural complications. The primary model was multilevel Cox proportional-hazards regression using an instrumental variable (IV) to adjust for known and unknown confounders with treating hospital as a treatment-preference instrument. The following variables were entered into Cox proportional-hazards regression in addition to the IV: age, sex, diabetes, indication for PCI, severity of coronary disease, smoking status, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, previous myocardial infarction, previous PCI, previous coronary artery bypass graft, type of stent.

In total, 151,001 patients underwent PCI: 31,514 (20.9%) for stable angina, 74,982 (49.6%) for UA/NSTEMI, and 44,505 (29.5%) for STEMI. Of these, FFR/iFR guidance was used in 11,433 patients (7.6%): 5029 (44.0%) with stable angina, 5989 (52.4%) with UA/NSTEMI, and 415 (3.6%) with STEMI; iFR was used in 1156 (10.1%) of these patients. After a median follow-up of 1784 (range 1–4824) days, the FFR/iFR group had lower adjusted risk estimates for all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69–0.91; P=0.001] and stent thrombosis and restenosis (HR 0.13; 95% CI 0.09–0.19; P<0.001). The number of periprocedural complications did not differ significantly between the groups (odds ratio 0.69; 95% CI 0.30–1.55; P=0.368). There was no interaction between FFR/iFR and indication for PCI. We found no difference between FFR and iFR (HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.90–1.59; P=0.216).

In this observational study, the use of FFR/IFR was associated with a lower risk of long-term mortality in patients undergoing PCI for stable angina, UA/NSTEMI, or STEMI. Our study supports the current European and American guidelines for the use of FFR/iFR during PCI and shows that intracoronary pressure wire guidance has prognostic benefit in patients with stable angina as well as in patients with the acute coronary syndrome.

Type of funding source: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Heart and Lung Foundation, ALF Västra Götaland, Swedish Scientific Council