Optical coherence tomography compared with fractional flow reserve guided approach in acute coronary syndromes: A...

To compare in patients with ACS (acute coronary syndromes) a PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention) approach based on FFR (fractional flow reserve) vs. one based on OCT (optical coherence tomography).

Consecutive patients admitted for ACS and treated with a PCI approach based on OCT or on FFR (recruited in two different studies) were compared and matched with propensity score analysis. Target Lesion revascularization (TLR) was the primary end point, while major adverse cardiovascular events [MACEs defined as the composite of death from cardiac causes, non-fatal MI, clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR), or re-hospitalization due to unstable angina] were the secondary ones. Sub-group analysis was performed for patients with FFR/OCT performed on culprit lesions and not. 285 patients were enrolled in the OCT-guided group and 335 in the FFR-guided group, 197 for each being selected after propensity score. After 25months (range: 7-39months), OCT-guided group were exposed to lower incidence of TLR (4.1% vs. 14.2% p<0.01) compared with FFR-guided group without impact on MACEs (14.2% vs. 14.2%, p=1) or all-cause death (3.6% vs. 1.1%, p=0.34). At Kaplan-Maier curve analysis for MACEs OCT-guided and FFR-guided groups showed similar outcomes (HR 1.19, CI 0.65-2.2, p=0.54). Subgroup analysis on culprit and not culprit vessel demonstrated consistent results.

An OCT based approach in ACS patients offers a reduction in TLR when compared to a PCI-FFR driven. These findings should be confirmed in randomized controlled trial.