European heart journal · 2021
Thin-cap fibroatheroma predicts clinical events in diabetic patients with normal fractional flow reserve: the COMBINE OCT-FFR trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kedhi Elvin, Berta Balazs, Roleder Tomasz, Hermanides Renicus S, Fabris Enrico, IJsselmuiden Alexander J J, Kauer Floris, Alfonso Fernando, von Birgelen Clemens, Escaned Javier, Camaro Cyril, Kennedy Mark W, Pereira Bruno, Magro Michael, Nef Holger, Reith Sebastian, Al Nooryani Arif, Rivero Fernando, Malinowski Krzysztof, De Luca Giuseppe, Garcia Garcia Hector, Granada Juan F, Wojakowski Wojciech
Аннотация
AIMS: The aim of this study was to understand the impact of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-detected thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA) on clinical outcomes of diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with fractional flow reserve (FFR)-negative lesions.
METHODS AND RESULTS: COMBINE OCT-FFR study was a prospective, double-blind, international, natural history study. After FFR assessment, and revascularization of FFR-positive lesions, patients with ≥1 FFR-negative lesions (target lesions) were classified in two groups based on the presence or absence of ≥1 TCFA lesion. The primary endpoint compared FFR-negative TCFA-positive patients with FFR-negative TCFA-negative patients for a composite of cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization or unstable angina requiring hospitalization at 18 months. Among 550 patients enrolled, 390 (81%) patients had ≥1 FFR-negative lesions. Among FFR-negative patients, 98 (25%) were TCFA positive and 292 (75%) were TCFA negative. The incidence of the primary endpoint was 13.3% and 3.1% in TCFA-positive vs. TCFA-negative groups, respectively (hazard ratio 4.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-10.89; P < 0.001). The Cox regression multivariable analysis identified TCFA as the strongest predictor of major adverse clinical events (MACE) (hazard ratio 5.12; 95% confidence interval 2.12-12.34; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Among DM patients with ≥1 FFR-negative lesions, TCFA-positive patients represented 25% of this population and were associated with a five-fold higher rate of MACE despite the absence of ischaemia. This discrepancy between the impact of vulnerable plaque and ischaemia on future adverse events may represent a paradigm shift for coronary artery disease risk stratification in DM patients.
METHODS AND RESULTS: COMBINE OCT-FFR study was a prospective, double-blind, international, natural history study. After FFR assessment, and revascularization of FFR-positive lesions, patients with ≥1 FFR-negative lesions (target lesions) were classified in two groups based on the presence or absence of ≥1 TCFA lesion. The primary endpoint compared FFR-negative TCFA-positive patients with FFR-negative TCFA-negative patients for a composite of cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization or unstable angina requiring hospitalization at 18 months. Among 550 patients enrolled, 390 (81%) patients had ≥1 FFR-negative lesions. Among FFR-negative patients, 98 (25%) were TCFA positive and 292 (75%) were TCFA negative. The incidence of the primary endpoint was 13.3% and 3.1% in TCFA-positive vs. TCFA-negative groups, respectively (hazard ratio 4.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-10.89; P < 0.001). The Cox regression multivariable analysis identified TCFA as the strongest predictor of major adverse clinical events (MACE) (hazard ratio 5.12; 95% confidence interval 2.12-12.34; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Among DM patients with ≥1 FFR-negative lesions, TCFA-positive patients represented 25% of this population and were associated with a five-fold higher rate of MACE despite the absence of ischaemia. This discrepancy between the impact of vulnerable plaque and ischaemia on future adverse events may represent a paradigm shift for coronary artery disease risk stratification in DM patients.