Treatment of three-vessel disease in light of the results of the FAME-3 study

• Published in: Orvosi hetilap Vol. 163; no. 26; p. 1032
• Main Authors: Piróth, Zsolt, Fülöp, Gábor, Csanádi, Bettina, Fontos, Géza, Andréka, Péter, Nyolczas, Noémi, Szolnoky, Jenő
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Hungarian
• Published: Hungary 26-06-2022
• Subjects: Coronary Artery Bypass - methods; Coronary Artery Disease - surgery; Drug-Eluting Stents; Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods; Treatment Outcome; coronariabypass; percutan coronariaintervenció; percutaneous coronary intervention; coronary artery bypass
• ISSN: 1788-6120
• DOI: 10.1556/650.2022.32487

Previous randomized clinical studies have shown the superiority of coronary artery bypass grafting over percutaneous coronary intervention in the treatment of severe multivessel disease mainly because of a reduced need for repeat revascularization but, in some, a mortality benefit and reduced rate of myocardial infarction were shown among those undergoing surgery. The late breaker multicentric, randomized FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation)-3 study, involving 1500 patients, sought to determine whether fractional flow reserve guided percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of new-generation drug-eluting stents was non -inferior to present-day coronary bypass surgery with respect to the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and repeat revascularization at one year. The authors who were particularly active in the FAME-3 trial describe the study setting, the characteristics of the patient population, the procedures, and the results. The FAME-3 study failed to show the non-inferiority of percutaneous coronary intervention to bypass surgery in the treatment of three vessel disease using the predetermined margin. The authors present a detailed analysis of the possible reasons and some important secondary results. These include a lack of significant difference between the two arms with respect to `hard end points' and the significantly higher perioperative morbidity of the surgical group. Albeit our clinical practice should be based on the analysis of the primary end point, informing patients and shared decision making must include these secondary results when individual revascularization strategies are planned.