Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background: Symptomatic relief is the primary goal of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable angina and is commonly observed clinically. However, there is no evidence from blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trials to show its efficacy. Methods: ORBITA is a blinded, multicentre randomised trial of PCI versus a placebo procedure for angina relief that was done at five study sites in the UK. We enrolled patients with severe (≥70%) single-vessel stenoses. After enrolment, patients received 6 weeks of medication optimisation. Patients then had pre-randomisation assessments with cardiopulmonary exercise testing, symptom questionnaires, and dobutamine stress echocardiography. Patients were randomised 1:1 to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure by use of an automated online randomisation tool. After 6 weeks of follow-up, the assessments done before randomisation were repeated at the final assessment. The primary endpoint was difference in exercise time increment between groups. All analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle and the study population contained all participants who underwent randomisation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02062593. Findings: ORBITA enrolled 230 patients with ischaemic symptoms. After the medication optimisation phase and between Jan 6, 2014, and Aug 11, 2017, 200 patients underwent randomisation, with 105 patients assigned PCI and 95 assigned the placebo procedure. Lesions had mean area stenosis of 84·4% (SD 10·2), fractional flow reserve of 0·69 (0·16), and instantaneous wave-free ratio of 0·76 (0·22). There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of exercise time increment between groups (PCI minus placebo 16·6 s, 95% CI −8·9 to 42·0, p=0·200). There were no deaths. Serious adverse events included four pressure-wire related complications in the placebo group, which required PCI, and five major bleeding events, including two in the PCI group and three in the placebo group. Interpretation: In patients with medically treated angina and severe coronary stenosis, PCI did not increase exercise time by more than the effect of a placebo procedure. The efficacy of invasive procedures can be assessed with a placebo control, as is standard for pharmacotherapy

Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio as Predictors of the Placebo-Controlled Response to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable Single-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: Physiology-Stratified Analysis of ORBITA

BACKGROUND: There are no data on how fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are associated with the placebo-controlled efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable single-vessel coronary artery disease. METHODS: We report the association between prerandomization invasive physiology within ORBITA (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina), a placebo-controlled trial of patients who have stable angina with angiographically severe single-vessel coronary disease clinically eligible for PCI. Patients underwent prerandomization research FFR and iFR assessment. The operator was blinded to these values. Assessment of response variables, treadmill exercise time, stress echocardiography score, symptom frequency, and angina severity were performed at prerandomization and blinded follow-up. Effects were calculated by analysis of covariance. The ability of FFR and iFR to predict placebo-controlled changes in response variables was tested by using regression modeling. RESULTS: Invasive physiology data were available in 196 patients (103 PCI and 93 placebo). At prerandomization, the majority had Canadian Cardiovascular Society class II or III symptoms (150/196, 76.5%). Mean FFR and iFR were 0.69±0.16 and 0.76±0.22, respectively; 97% had ≥1 positive ischemia tests. The estimated effect of PCI on between-arm prerandomization-adjusted total exercise time was 20.7 s (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.0 to 45.5; P=0.100) with no interaction of FFR (Pinteraction=0.318) or iFR (Pinteraction=0.523). PCI improved stress echocardiography score more than placebo (1.07 segment units; 95% CI, 0.70-1.44; P<0.00001). The placebo-controlled effect of PCI on stress echocardiography score increased progressively with decreasing FFR (Pinteraction<0.00001) and decreasing iFR (Pinteraction<0.00001). PCI did not improve angina frequency score significantly more than placebo (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.96-2.80; P=0.072) with no detectable evidence of interaction with FFR (Pinteraction=0.849) or iFR (Pinteraction=0.783). However, PCI resulted in more patient-reported freedom from angina than placebo (49.5% versus 31.5%; odds ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.30-4.72; P=0.006) but neither FFR (Pinteraction=0.693) nor iFR (Pinteraction=0.761) modified this effect. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable angina and severe single-vessel disease, the blinded effect of PCI was more clearly seen by stress echocardiography score and freedom from angina than change in treadmill exercise time. Moreover, the lower the FFR or iFR, the greater the magnitude of stress echocardiographic improvement caused by PCI

Impact of Percutaneous Revascularization on Exercise Hemodynamics in Patients With Stable Coronary Disease

Background: Recently, the therapeutic benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been challenged in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCD). Objectives: The authors examined the impact of PCI on exercise responses in the coronary circulation, the microcirculation, and systemic hemodynamics in patients with SCD. Methods: A total of 21 patients (mean age 60.3 ± 8.4 years) with SCD and single-vessel coronary stenosis underwent cardiac catheterization. Pre-PCI, patients exercised on a supine ergometer until rate-limiting angina or exhaustion. Simultaneous trans-stenotic coronary pressure-flow measurements were made throughout exercise. Post-PCI, this process was repeated. Physiological parameters, rate-limiting symptoms, and exercise performance were compared between pre-PCI and post-PCI exercise cycles. Results: PCI reduced ischemia as documented by fractional flow reserve value (pre-PCI 0.59 ± 0.18 to post-PCI 0.91 ± 0.07), instantaneous wave-free ratio value (pre-PCI 0.61 ± 0.27 to post-PCI 0.96 ± 0.05) and coronary flow reserve value (pre-PCI 1.7 ± 0.7 to post-PCI 3.1 ± 1.0; p < 0.001 for all). PCI increased peak-exercise average peak coronary flow velocity (p < 0.0001), coronary perfusion pressure (distal coronary pressure; p < 0.0001), systolic blood pressure (p = 0.01), accelerating wave energy (p < 0.001), and myocardial workload (rate-pressure product; p < 0.01). These changes observed immediately following PCI resulted from the abolition of stenosis resistance (p < 0.0001). PCI was also associated with an immediate improvement in exercise time (+67 s; 95% confidence interval: 31 to 102 s; p < 0.0001) and a reduction in rate-limiting angina symptoms (81% reduction in rate-limiting angina symptoms post-PCI; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In patients with SCD and severe single-vessel stenosis, objective physiological responses to exercise immediately normalize following PCI. This is seen in the coronary circulation, the microcirculation, and systemic hemodynamics

Pre-Angioplasty Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Pullback Predicts Hemodynamic Outcome In Humans With Coronary Artery Disease: Primary Results of the International Multicenter iFR GRADIENT Registry.

The authors sought to evaluate the accuracy of instantaneous wave-Free Ratio (iFR) pullback measurements to predict post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) physiological outcomes, and to quantify how often iFR pullback alters PCI strategy in real-world clinical settings.This article is freely available via Open Access. Please click on the Additional Link above to access the full-text via the publisher's site

How Do Fractional Flow Reserve, Whole-Cycle PdPa, and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Correlate With Exercise Coronary Flow Velocity During Exercise-Induced Angina?

Description to be added.Cannot be left empt

Association Between Physiological Stenosis Severity and Angina-Limited Exercise Time in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Importance: Physiological stenosis assessment is recommended to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable angina. Objective: To determine the association between all commonly used indices of physiological stenosis severity and angina-limited exercise time in patients with stable angina. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included data (without follow-up) collected over 1 year from 2 cardiac hospitals. Selected patients with stable angina and physiologically severe single-vessel coronary artery disease presenting for clinically driven elective PCI were included. Exposures: Fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR), and coronary flow reserve (CFR) were measured invasively. Immediately after this, patients maximally exercised on a catheter-table–mounted supine ergometer until they developed rate-limiting angina. Subsequent PCI was performed in most patients, followed by repeat maximal supine exercise testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations between FFR, iFR, HSR, CFR, and angina-limited exercise time were assessed using linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients. Additionally, the associations between the post-PCI increment in exercise time and baseline FFR, iFR, HSR, and CFR were assessed. Results: Twenty-three patients (21 [91.3%] of whom were male; mean [SD] age, 60.6 [8.1] years) completed the pre-PCI component of the study protocol. Mean (SD) stenosis diameter was 74.6% (10.4%). Median (interquartile range [IQR]) values were 0.54 (0.44-0.72) for FFR, 0.53 (0.38-0.83) for iFR, 1.67 (0.84-3.16) for HSR, and 1.35 (1.11-1.63) for CFR. Mean (SD) angina-limited exercise time was 144 (77) seconds. Anatomical stenosis characteristics were not significantly associated with angina-limited exercise time. Conversely, FFR (R2 = 0.27; P = .01), iFR (R2 = 0.46; P < .001), HSR (R2 = 0.39; P < .01), and CFR (R2 = 0.16; P < .05) were all associated with angina-limited exercise time. Twenty-one patients (19 [90.5%] of whom were male; mean [SD] age, 60.1 [8.2] years) competed the full protocol of PCI, post-PCI physiological assessment, and post-PCI maximal exercise. After PCI, the median (IQR) FFR rose to 0.91 (0.85-0.96), median (IQR) iFR to 0.98 (0.94-0.99), and median (IQR) CFR to 2.73 (2.50-3.12), while the median (IQR) HSR fell to 0.16 (0.06-0.37) (P < .001 for all). The post-PCI increment in exercise time was most significantly associated with baseline iFR (R2 = 0.26; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In a selected group of patients with severe, single-vessel stable angina, FFR, iFR, HSR, and CFR were all modestly correlated with angina-limited exercise time to varying degrees. Notwithstanding the limited sample size, no clear association was demonstrated between anatomical stenosis severity and angina-limited exercise time

Comparing invasive hemodynamic responses in adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress in chronic coronary syndromes

Objectives- Adenosine hyperemia is an integral component of the physiological assessment of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). The aim of this study was to compare systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamics between intravenous (IV) adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress in patients with CCS and coronary stenosis. Methods- Twenty-three patients (mean age, 60.6 ± 8.1 years) with CCS and single-vessel coronary stenosis underwent cardiac catheterization. Continuous trans-stenotic coronary pressure-flow measurements were performed during: i) IV adenosine hyperemia, and ii) physical exercise using a catheter-table-mounted supine ergometer. Systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamic responses were compared between IV adenosine and exercise stimuli. Results- Mean stenosis diameter was 74.6% ± 10.4. Median (interquartile range) FFR was 0.54 (0.44–0.72). At adenosine hyperemia versus exercise stress, mean aortic pressure (Pa, 91 ± 16 mmHg vs 99 ± 15 mmHg, p < 0.0001), distal coronary pressure (Pd, 58 ± 21 mmHg vs 69 ± 24 mmHg, p < 0.0001), trans-stenotic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa, 0.63 ± 0.18 vs 0.69 ± 0.19, p < 0.0001), microvascular resistance (MR, 2.9 ± 2.2 mmHg.cm−1.sec−1 vs 4.2 ± 1.7 mmHg.cm−1.sec−1, p = 0.001), heart rate (HR, 80 ± 15 bpm vs 85 ± 21 bpm, p = 0.02) and rate-pressure product (RPP, 7522 ± 2335 vs 9077 ± 3200, p = 0.0001) were all lower. Conversely, coronary flow velocity (APV, 23.7 ± 9.5 cm/s vs 18.5 ± 6.8 cm/s, p = 0.02) was higher. Additionally, temporal changes in Pa, Pd, Pd/Pa, MR, HR, RPP and APV during IV adenosine hyperemia versus exercise were all significantly different (p < 0.05 for all). Conclusions- In patients with CCS and coronary stenosis, invasive hemodynamic responses differed markedly between IV adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress. These differences were observed across systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamics