Impact of fractional flow reserve on decision-making in daily clinical practice: A single center experience in Egypt

BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the reference standard for the assessment of the functional significance of coronary artery stenoses, but remains underutilized. Our aims were to study whether FFR changed the decision for treatment of intermediate coronary lesions and to assess the clinical outcome in the deferred and intervention groups. METHODS: In this retrospective study, coronary angiograms of patients with moderately stenotic lesions (40–70%) for which FFR was performed were re-analyzed by three experienced interventional cardiologists (blinded to FFR results) to determine its angiographic significance and whether to defer or perform an intervention. RESULTS: We revised 156 equivocal lesions of 151 patients. The clinical presentation were stable angina (65.6%) and acute coronary syndrome in (34.4%). All reviewers had concordant agreement to do PCI in 59 (37.8%) lesions based on angiographic assessment. Interestingly 23 (39%) of these lesions were functionally non-significant by FFR. The reviewers agreed to defer 97 (62.2%) lesions, however, 32 (33%) of these lesions were functionally significant by FFR and necessitated PCI. MACE were similar in both groups (1.5% vs 2.4%, p = 1.0). CONCLUSION: Mismatches between visually- and FFR- estimated significance of intermediate coronary stenosis are frequently encountered across a wide spectrum of clinical presentations. FFR leads to a change in decision for coronary intervention. The clinical and cost implications of such changes-in areas with limited resources- needs further evaluation.