Objective: To compare the outcomes between coronary angiography (CAG ) guided- and fractional flow reserve (FFR) guided-strategy in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with moderate lesions.
Methods: Totally, 249 ACS subjects with moderate lesions examined by CAG in Beijing Anzhen Hospital from July 1, 2014 to July 30, 2015 were included in the present analysis. Among them, 98 patients were further examined by FFR and 151 were not. All the patients were treated with medication either guided by CAG or by FFR. Subjects were followed up for an average of 10 months. The end points included death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and hospitalization costs. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as death, nonfatal MI, and TVR.
Results: At the end of follow-up, 29 patients had MACE with 6 cases (6.5%) in the FFR-guided group, and 23 cases (16.2%) in the CAG-guided group (P=0.036). Patients treated with FFR-guided strategy had significantly lower rate of TVR than those treated with CAG-guided strategy (5.4% vs 14.8%, P=0.045). No statistical difference was observed in nonfatal MI (2.2% vs 3.5%, P=0.242) between the two groups, and no cardiac death occurred in the two groups. However, the rate of patients treated with stains (P=0.033) and the hospitalization costs (P=0.001) were significantly increased in the FFR-guided group.
Conclusions: FFR-guided strategy for patients with ACS results in lower TVR and MACE, but higher cost when compared with CAG-guided strategy.