Multivessel PCI Guided by FFR or Angiography for Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who have multivessel disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for nonculprit lesions (complete revascularization) is superior to treatment of the culprit lesion alone. However, whether complete revascularization that is guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is superior to an angiography-guided procedure is unclear. METHODS In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who had undergone successful PCI of the infarct-related artery to receive complete revascularization guided by either FFR or angiography. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS The mean (+/- SD) number of stents that were placed per patient for nonculprit lesions was 1.01 +/- 0.99 in the FFR-guided group and 1.50 +/- 0.86 in the angiography-guided group. During follow-up, a primary outcome event occurred in 32 of 586 patients (5.5%) in the FFR-guided group and in 24 of 577 patients (4.2%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 2.23; P=0.31). Death occurred in 9 patients (1.5%) in the FFR-guided group and in 10 (1.7%) in the angiography-guided group; nonfatal myocardial infarction in 18 (3.1%) and 10 (1.7%), respectively; and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in 15 (2.6%) and 11 (1.9%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS In patients with STEMI undergoing complete revascularization, an FFR-guided strategy did not have a significant benefit over an angiography-guided strategy with respect to the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization at 1 year. However, given the wide confidence intervals for the estimate of effect, the findings do not allow for a conclusive interpretation.