Aims:The aim of this study was to assess prospectively the clinical benefits of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in guiding coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).Methods and results: GRAFFITI is a single-blinded, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided CABG. We enrolled patients undergoing coronary angiography, having a significantly diseased left anterior descending artery or left main stem and at least one more major coronary artery with intermediate stenosis, assessed by FFR. Surgical strategy was defined based on angiography, blinded to FFR values prior to randomisation. After randomisation, patients were operated on either following the angiography-based strategy (angiography-guided group) or according to FFR, i.e., with an FFR ≤0.80 as cut-off for grafting (FFR-guided group). The primary endpoint was graft patency at 12 months. Between March 2012 and December 2016, 172 patients were randomised either to the angiography-guided group (84 patients) or to the FFR-guided group (88 patients). The patients had a median of three [3; 4] lesions; diameter stenosis was 65% (50%; 80%), FFR was 0.72 (0.50; 0.82). Compared to the angiography-guided group, the FFR-guided group received fewer anastomoses (3 [3; 3] vs 2 [2; 3], respectively; p=0.004). One-year angiographic follow-up showed no difference in overall graft patency (126 [80%] vs 113 [81%], respectively; p=0.885). One-year clinical follow-up, available in 98% of patients, showed no difference in the composite of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation and stroke.Conclusions: FFR guidance of CABG has no impact on one-year graft patency, but it is associated with a simplified surgical procedure. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01810224

Background-Aortic

Although overall values did not change after TAVI, iFR presented significant and mostly erratic individual variations after valve replacement. Delta iFR was influenced by the extent of the transaortic gradient drop induced by TAVI. Therefore, caution is advisable in the interpretation of iFR in the presence of AS.

Objective. To investigate the effect of extent of revascularization in complex high-risk indicated patients (CHIP) undergoing Impella-protected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background. Complete revascularization has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes. However, the impact of more complete revascularization during Impella-protected PCI in CHIP has not been reported. Methods. A total of 86 CHIP undergoing elective PCI with Impella 2.5 or Impella CP between April 2007 and December 2016 from 2 high volume Italian centers were included. Baseline, procedural, and clinical outcomes data were collected retrospectively. Completeness of coronary revascularization was assessed using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society myocardial jeopardy score (BCIS-JS) derived revascularization index (RI). The primary end-point was all-cause mortality. A multivariate regression model was used to identify independent predictors of mortality. Results. All patients had multivessel disease and were considered unsuitable for surgery. At baseline, 44% had left main disease, 78% had LVEF ≤ 35%, and mean BCIS-JS score was 10±2. The mean BCIS-JS derived RI was 0.7±0.2 and procedural complications were uncommon. At 14-month follow-up, all-cause mortality was 10.5%. At follow-up, 67.4% of CHIP had LVEF ≥ 35% compared to 22.1% before Impella protected-PCI. Higher BCIS-JS RI was significantly associated with LVEF improvement (p=0.002). BCIS-JS RI of ≤ 0.8 (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01- 0.92, and p = 0.042) was an independent predictor of mortality. Conclusions. These results support the practice of percutaneous Impella use for protected PCI in CHIP. A more complete revascularization was associated with significant LVEF improvement and survival.

BackgroundManagement of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation is uncertain. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has never been clinically validated in aortic stenosis. The study aim was to analyze the clinical outcome of FFR‐guided revascularization in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.Methods and ResultsPatients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease at coronary angiography were included in this retrospective analysis and divided in 2 groups: angiography guided (122/216; 56.5%) versus FFR‐guided revascularization (94/216; 43.5%). Patients were clinically followed up and evaluated for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 2‐year follow‐up. Most lesions in the FFR group resulted negative according to the conventional 0.80 cutoff value (111/142; 78.2%) and were deferred. The FFR‐guided group showed a better major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event–free survival compared with the angio‐guided group (92.6% versus 82.0%; hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2–1.0; P=0.035). Patients with deferred lesions based on FFR presented better outcome compared with patients who underwent angio‐guided percutaneous coronary intervention (91.4% versus 68.1%; hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1–0.6; P=0.001).ConclusionsFFR guidance was associated with favorable outcome in this observational study in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Randomized trials are needed to investigate the long‐term effects of FFR‐guided revascularization against angiographic guidance alone in patients with aortic stenosis.