Multicenter FLOW-CMD registry is a prospective, multi-center, registry study. The aim of the study is to evaluate prognostic implications of coronary microvascular disease (CMD) in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) undergoing revascularization decision using FFR or other non-hyperemic pressure ratios.
The diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) have focused on identifying and alleviating both extent and severity of myocardial ischemia, as it is the most important prognostic fator. Thus, fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been a standard method for identifying ischemia-related epicardial coronary stenosis, accruing an abundance of clinical evidence on the benefit of FFR-guided treatment decisions. However, a high FFR value (\>0.80) does not necessarily imply freedom from future events. Indeed, clinical events still occur in patients who are deferred based on high FFR. The microvasculature is one of the main components of coronary circulatory system, and the presence of microvascular disease may contribute to clinical events in patients without epicardial coronary stenosis. In the cardiac catheterization laboratory, microvascular disease can be assessed using a pressure/temperature-sensor coronary wire or a Doppler wire. Previous studies have demonstrated the incremental prognostic implications of coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) in patients with high FFR, and the recent European guidelines supported the importance of invasive physiologic assessment using CFR and IMR in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Furthermore, recent Expert Consensus Documents and the European Society of Cardiology guideline of Chronic Coronary Syndrome have underlined the importance of evaluating coronary microvascular disease (CMD) in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) and proposed an universal definition of CMD based on: 1) functionally non-obstructive CAD defined by a fractional flow reserve (FFR)\>0.80 and 2) impaired coronary microvascular function determined by abnormal CFR and/or microvascular resistance. Another important issue in contemporary practice is how to improve patient prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although PCI can induce secondary CMD originated from multiple mechanism associated with the procedure (e.g. distal embolization or endothelial dysfunction), and although secondary CMD also affects coronary circulatory function, there has been no previous evidence evaluating the incidence and prognosis of secondary CMD after successful PCI for epicardial coronary stenosis. Furthermore, both previous and recent trials demonstrated that intravascular imaging-guided PCI optimization has significantly better clinical outcomes than angiography-only guided PCI. However, these trials could not explain the exact mechanism underlying the potential benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI optimization for better clinical outcome, aside from a larger final stent area following intravascular imaging-guided PCI. Although the fundamental purpose of PCI is to resolve inducible myocardial ischemia originated from epicardial coronary stenosis, several studies have demonstrated that a substantial proportion of patients who underwent angiographically successful PCI had suboptimal post-PCI FFR or non-hyperemic pressure ratios, which are independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. Previous studies demonstrated that intravascular imaging devices could identify correctable cause of suboptimal post-PCI FFR. In this regard, it can be expected that intravascular imaging-guided PCI optimization would result in better post-PCI physiologic results such as higher post-PCI FFR and CFR, compared with angiography-only guided PCI. However, these issues have not been fully clarified. Regarding the prognostic impact of CMD, only limited data has been available on the prognostic implications of CMD defined by the universal definition among patients with IHD, especially in patients with insignificant epicardial coronary disease defined by FFR\>0.80. In addition, only one prospective study evaluated optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided PCI for post-PCI FFR in patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. None of prospective study evaluated potential physiologic benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI optimization using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or OCT in unselected patient population. Therefore, the primary objectives of the current multicenter prospective registry are to evaluate prognostic implications of CMD in patients with suspected IHD undergoing revascularization decision using FFR or other non-hyperemic pressure ratios and to evaluate the efficacy of intravascular imaging-guided optimization to enhance post-revascularization coronary circulatory function, compared with angiography-only guided revascularization in revascularized population.
All coronary physiologic parameters are measured following diagnostic angiography. Resting pd/pa, FFR, CFR and IMR will be calculated using coronary physiologic parameters. In patients treated by PCI, post-PCI physiologic assessment including CFR, IMR, and FFR will be performed.
By the operator's discretion, stent-optimization will be performed under intravascular imaging devices (IVUS \[Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts, USA\] or OCT \[Abbott Vascular\], St. Paul, MN, USA\]).
Chonnam National University Hospital
Gwangju, South Korea
Chosun University Hospital
Gwangju, South Korea
Gyeongsang National University Hospital
Jinju, South Korea
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital
Seongnam, South Korea
Patient-oriented composite outcomes (POCO)
a composite of all-cause death, MI, any repeat revascularization, or admission for heart failure
Time frame: 1 year after last patient enrollment
All-cause death
All-cause death
Time frame: 1 year after last patient enrollment
Cardiac death
Cardiac death
Time frame: 1 year after last patient enrollment
Target-vessel MI
Target-vessel MI
Time frame: 1 year after last patient enrollment
Non-target vessel MI
Non-target vessel MI
Time frame: 1 year after last patient enrollment
Any MI
Any MI
Time frame: 1 year after last patient enrollment
Target vessel revascularization (clinically-driven or all)
Target vessel revascularization (clinically-driven or all)
Time frame: 1 year after last patient enrollment
Non-target vessel revascularization (clinically-driven or all)
Non-target vessel revascularization (clinically-driven or all)
Time frame: 1 year after last patient enrollment
Any repeat revascularization (clinically-driven or all)
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
1,003
Samsung Medical Center
Seoul, South Korea
Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center
Seoul, South Korea
Seoul St. Mary's Hospital
Seoul, South Korea
Any repeat revascularization (clinically-driven or all)
Time frame: 1 year after last patient enrollment
Admission for congestive heart failure
Admission for congestive heart failure
Time frame: 1 year after last patient enrollment
Stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic)
Stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic)
Time frame: 1 year after last patient enrollment
Seattle Angina Questionnaire
Physical limitation, Angina stability, Angina frequency, Treatment satisfaction, Quality of life
Time frame: Baseline, 1 year, and 2 year after patient enrollment
Proportion of functionally optimized post-PCI results
Proportion of functionally optimized post-PCI results (Post-PCI FFR\>0.80 and CFR\>2.0) according to the use of intravascular imaging
Time frame: Post-procedure
Incidence of secondary CMD after PCI
Incidence of secondary CMD (CFR\<2.0 and IMR≥25) after PCI among revascularized population
Time frame: Post-procedure