American Heart Journal
Volume 154, Issue 4 , Pages 632-636 , October 2007

Rationale and design of the fractional flow reserve versus angiography for multivessel evaluation (FAME) study

  • William F. Fearon, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: William F. Fearon, MD, Center for Cardiovascular Technology, H3554, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305.
    • ,
  • Pim A.L. Tonino, MD

      Affiliations

    • Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Bernard De Bruyne, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Cardiovascular Center, Aalst, Belgium
    • ,
  • Uwe Siebert, MD, MSc, MPH, ScD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT—University of Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria
    • Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
    • ,
  • Nico H.J. Pijls, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • for the FAME Study Investigators

Received 27 March 2007 ,Accepted 14 June 2007.

References 

  1. Beller GA, Zaret BL. Contributions of nuclear cardiology to diagnosis and prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2000;101:1465–1478
  2. Davies RA, Goldberg AD, Forman S, et al. Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) Study two-year follow-up: outcomes of patients randomized to initial strategies of medical therapy versus revascularization. Circulation. 1997;95:2037–2043
  3. Lima RSL, Watson DD, Goode AR, et al. Incremental value of combined perfusion and function over perfusion alone by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of severe three-vessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:64–70
  4. Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our preoccupation with coronary luminology. The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 1995;92:2333–2342
  5. De Bruyne B, Hersbach F, Pijls NH, et al. Abnormal epicardial coronary resistance in patients with diffuse atherosclerosis but normal coronary angiography. Circulation. 2001;104:2401–2406
  6. Fearon WF, Nakamura M, Lee DP, et al. Simultaneous assessment of fractional and coronary flow reserves in cardiac transplant recipients: Physiologic Investigation for Transplant Arteriopathy (PITA Study). Circulation. 2003;108:1605–1610
  7. Fischer JJ, Samady H, McPherson JA, et al. Comparison between visual assessment and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary narrowings of moderate severity. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:210–215
  8. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1703–1708
  9. Pijls NH, van Son JA, Kirkeeide RL, et al. Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing functional stenosis severity before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1993;87:1354–1367
  10. Chamuleau SA, Meuwissen M, Koch KT, et al. Usefulness of fractional flow reserve for risk stratification of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and an intermediate stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89:377–380
  11. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Bartunek J, et al. Fractional flow reserve in patients with prior myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2001;104:157–162
  12. Fearon WF, Takagi A, Jeremias A, et al. Use of fractional myocardial flow reserve to assess the functional significance of intermediate coronary stenoses. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86:1013–1014
  13. Pijls NHJ, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally non-significant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:2105–2111
  14. Berger A, Botman KJ, MacCarthy PA, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve–guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:438–442
  15. Wongpraparut N, Yalamanchili V, Pasnoori V, et al. Thirty-month outcome after fractional flow reserve–guided versus conventional multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2005;96:877–884
  16. Ong AT, van Domburg RT, Aoki J, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents remain superior to bare-metal stents at two years: medium-term results from the Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1356–1360
  17. Moses JW, Stone GW, Nikolsky E, et al. Drug-eluting stents in the treatment of intermediate lesions: pooled analysis from four randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:2164–2171
  18. Kaiser C, Brunner-La Rocca P, Buser PT, et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared with a third-generation bare-metal stent in a real-world setting: randomised Basel Stent Kosten Effektivitats Trial (BASKET). Lancet. 2005;366:921–929
  19. Pfisterer M, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Buser PT, et al. Late clinical events after clopidogrel discontinuation may limit the benefit of drug-eluting stents: an observational study of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:2584–2591
  20. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Bartunek J, et al. Fractional flow reserve in patients with prior myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2001;104:157–162
  21. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials). Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285:1992–1995
  22. Silber S, Albertsson P, Aviles FF, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:804–847
  23. Pijls NH. Is it time to measure fractional flow reserve in all patients?. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1122–1124
  24. Roques F, Nashef SA, Michel P, et al. Risk factors and outcome in European cardiac surgery: analysis of the EuroSCORE multinational database of 19030 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999;15:816–822
  25. Ong AT, Serruys PW, Mohr FW, et al. The SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) study: design, rationale, and run-in phase. Am Heart J. 2006;151:1194–1204
  26. In:  Szende A,  Williams A editor. Measuring self-reported population health: an international perspective based on EQ-5D. Hungary: Spring Med Publishing; 2004;
  27. Berger A, Botman KJ, MacCarthy PA, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve–guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:438–442
  28. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. Report CPMP/EWP/482/99. London: July 27, 2000.

PII: S0002-8703(07)00512-1

doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.012

American Heart Journal
Volume 154, Issue 4 , Pages 632-636 , October 2007

Article Tools