Fractional flow reserve and non-hyperemic indices: Essential tools for percutaneous coronary interventions

Table 3 Studies that evaluated the outcomes of fractional flow reserve in intermediate coronary artery disease

Author or Study	Single or MVD CAD	Study design	FFR value defining ischemia	No. of patients	Survival %	Event-free survival %	Follow up, mo	Primary outcome rate %
DEFER[37]	Single	Randomized, prospective, multicenter	0.75	91/144	93/91	80/63	60
FAME[10]	MVD	Randomized, prospective, multicenter	0.80	509/1005	37/509	73	12
Hamilos et al[50]	LM	Prospective, single center	0.80	136/73	89.8/85.4	74.2/82.8	35
FLOWER MI[51]	MVD	Randomized, prospective, multicenter	0.80	590/1171	5.5/4.2	98.5/98.3	12.36
PHANTOM[52]	NR	Prospective, multicenter	0.75	39/21	100/100	97/76	12
FAME 2[9]	Single + MVD	Randomized, prospective, multicenter	0.80	447/1220			60	8.7
FAME 3[53]	MVD	Randomized, prospective, multicenter	0.80	757/1500			12	10.6

CAD: Coronary artery disease; MVD: Multivessel disease; FFR: Fractional flow reserve; mo: Months; LM: Left main; No: Number. Table 3 represents the multiple studies that evaluated the fractional flow reserve through years. These diverse trials had different end points but generally converged to the common conclusion that fractional flow reserve guided- percutaneous interventions (PCI) has better outcomes than angiography-guided PCI. FFR clinical threshold has been chosen upon these studies.