Reclassification of Treatment Strategy with Fractional Flow Reserve in Cancer Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

• Published in: Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Vol. 58; no. 7; p. 884
• Main Authors: Kim, Jin Wan, Dayah, Tariq J, Javaid, Awad, Monlezun, Dominique J, Balanescu, Dinu V, Donisan, Teodora, Karimzad, Kaveh, Hakeem, Abdul, Boone, David L, Palaskas, Nicolas, Lopez-Mattei, Juan, Kim, Peter Y, Durand, Jean-Bernard, Song, Juhee, Balanescu, Serban M, Yang, Eric H, Herrmann, Joerg, Marmagkiolis, Konstantinos, Toutouzas, Konstantinos, Johnson, Nils P, Iliescu, Cezar A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 01-07-2022; MDPI
• Subjects: Cancer therapies; cardio-oncology; Constriction, Pathologic; Coronary Angiography - methods; coronary artery disease; Coronary Artery Disease - complications; Coronary Stenosis - complications; Coronary Stenosis - surgery; Follow-Up Studies; fractional flow reserve; Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial; Humans; Medical imaging; Mortality; Neoplasms - complications; Neoplasms - drug therapy; percutaneous coronary intervention; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors - therapeutic use; quantitative coronary angiography; Stents; Treatment Outcome; coronary artery disease; percutaneous coronary intervention; quantitative coronary angiography; cardio-oncology; fractional flow reserve
• ISSN: 1648-9144; 1010-660X; 1648-9144
• DOI: 10.3390/medicina58070884

Background and Objectives: Cancer and coronary artery disease (CAD) often coexist. Compared to quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), fractional flow reserve (FFR) has emerged as a more reliable method of identifying significant coronary stenoses. We aimed to assess the specific management, safety and outcomes of FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cancer patients with stable CAD. Materials and Methods: FFR was used to assess cancer patients that underwent coronary angiography for stable CAD between September 2008 and May 2016, and were found to have ≥50% stenosis by QCA. Patients with lesions with an FFR > 0.75 received medical therapy alone, while those with FFR ≤ 0.75 were revascularized. Procedure-related complications, all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularizations were analyzed. Results: Fifty-seven patients with stable CAD underwent FFR on 57 lesions. Out of 31 patients with ≥70% stenosis as measured by QCA, 14 (45.1%) had an FFR ≥ 0.75 and lesions were reclassified as moderate and did not receive PCI nor DAPT. Out of 26 patients with <70% stenosis as measured by QCA, 6 (23%) had an FFR < 0.75 and were reclassified as severe and were treated with PCI and associated DAPT. No periprocedural complications, urgent revascularization, acute coronary syndromes, or cardiovascular deaths were noted. There was a 22.8% mortality at 1 year, all cancer related. Patients who received a stent by FFR assessment showed a significant association with decreased risk of all-cause death (HR: 0.37, 95% CI 0.15−0.90, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Further studies are needed to define the optimal therapeutic approach for cancer patients with CAD. Using an FFR cut-off point of 0.75 to guide PCI translates into fewer interventions and can facilitate cancer care. There was an overall reduction in mortality in patients that received a stent, suggesting increased resilience to cancer therapy and progression.