In patients with confirmed ST, OCT imaging identified an underlying morphological abnormality in 97% of cases.

Despite the use of prasugrel, a significant number of patients undergoing PCI in the setting of acute coronary syndromes do not achieve optimal PR inhibition. Such patients have a higher risk for MACE after PCI.

R ecent studies have demonstrated that additional diagnostic information is needed to choose the most appropriate therapy for patients who have coronary artery disease. 1 In particular, the results of the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial 2 have demonstrated that to perform a coronary revascularization by Background-There is no large report of the impact of fractional flow reserve (FFR) on the reclassification of the coronary revascularization strategy on individual patients referred for diagnostic angiography. Methods and Results-The Registre Français de la FFR (R3F) investigated 1075 consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic angiography including an FFR investigation at 20 French centers. Investigators were asked to define prospectively their revascularization strategy a priori based on angiography before performing the FFR. The final revascularization strategy, reclassification of the strategy by FFR, and 1-year clinical follow-up were prospectively recorded. The strategy a priori based on angiography was medical therapy in 55% and revascularization in 45% (percutaneous coronary intervention, 38%; coronary artery bypass surgery, 7%). Patients were treated according to FFR in 1028/1075 (95.7%). The applied strategy after FFR was medical therapy in 58% and revascularization in 42% (percutaneous coronary intervention, 32%; coronary artery bypass surgery, 10%). The final strategy applied differed from the strategy a priori in 43% of cases: in 33% of a priori medical patients, in 56% of patients undergoing a priori percutaneous coronary intervention, and in 51% of patients undergoing a priori coronary artery bypass surgery. In reclassified patients treated based on FFR and in disagreement with the angiography-based a priori decision (n=464), the 1-year outcome (major cardiac event, 11.2%) was as good as in patients in whom final applied strategy concurred with the angiography-based a priori decision (n=611; major cardiac event,11.9%; log-rank, P=0.78). At 1 year, >93% patients were asymptomatic without difference between reclassified and nonreclassified patients (Generalized Linear Mixed Model, P=0.75). Reclassification safety was preserved in high-risk patients. Conclusion-This study shows that performing FFR during diagnostic angiography is associated with reclassification of the revascularization decision in about half of the patients. It further demonstrates that it is safe to pursue a revascularization strategy divergent from that suggested by angiography but guided by FFR. (Circulation. 2014;129:173-185.)Key Words: coronary angiography ◼ coronary artery disease ◼ fractional flow reserve ◼ mortality ◼ outcome assessment (health care)© 2013 American Heart Association, Inc.Circulation is available at http://circ.ahajournals.org DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006646Continuing medical education (CME) credit is available for this article. Go to http://cme.ahajournals.org to take the quiz. Received October 7, 2013; accepted October 30, 2013. Clinical Pe...

Optimal P2Y12 receptor blockade is critical to prevent ischaemic recurrence in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to compare the level of platelet reactivity (PR) inhibition achieved by prasugrel and ticagrelor loading dose (LD) in diabetic acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing PCI. We performed a single-center prospective open-label randomised trial. Patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing PCI for an ACS were randomised to receive prasugrel 60 mg or ticagrelor 180 mg. The primary endpoint of the study was the level of platelet reactivity (PR) assessed between 6 and 18 hours post-LD using the VASP index. We randomised 100 diabetic patients undergoing PCI for an ACS. No difference was observed in baseline characteristics between the two groups. In particular, the rate of patient receiving insulin therapy was identical (25 vs 28.6%; p =0.7). Ticagrelor achieved a significantly lower PR compared to prasugrel loading dose (17.3 ± 14.2 vs 27.7 ± 23.3%; p=0.009). In addition the rate of high on-treatment platelet reactivity, defined by a VASP ≥50%, tend to be lower in the ticagrelor group although the difference did not reach statistical significance (6 vs 16%; p=0.2). The rate of low on treatment PR was identical (60 vs 54%; p=0.8). The present study demonstrates that ticagrelor LD is superior to prasugrel LD to reduce PR in ACS patients with diabetes mellitus. Whether the higher potency of ticagrelor could translate into a clinical benefit should be investigated.