Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease (FAME)
Source: View publication →
In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, an FFR-guided PCI strategy reduces the incidence of major adverse cardiac events at one year compared to an angiography-guided strategy while requiring fewer stents.
Key Findings
Study Design
Study Limitations
Clinical Significance
The FAME trial established Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) as a gold-standard physiological tool to guide revascularization in multivessel coronary disease. By demonstrating that deferring revascularization in lesions without functional significance (FFR > 0.80) is safe and reduces MACE, the trial changed the standard of care from angiographic-based 'stent everything' approaches to physiology-guided, selective intervention.
Historical Context
Prior to FAME, revascularization decisions in the cath lab were primarily based on visual angiographic assessment of stenosis severity. The trial challenged the assumption that all angiographically apparent stenoses require intervention, shifting the paradigm towards physiological assessment to identify ischemia-inducing lesions that provide prognostic benefit when treated.
Guided Discussion
High-yield insights from every perspective
Describe the physiological principle of Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) and explain why a 70% stenosis on a coronary angiogram might not necessarily cause myocardial ischemia.
Key Response
FFR measures the ratio of maximum achievable blood flow in a stenotic artery to the theoretical maximum flow in the same artery without stenosis, typically calculated as the ratio of distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure during maximal hyperemia. Visual angiography is a 2D representation that often fails to account for 3D lesion geometry, tandem lesions, or the state of the microvasculature. A lesion may look significant but not cause a pressure drop sufficient to impair flow (usually defined as FFR >0.80), meaning PCI would provide no physiological benefit.
In a patient with stable multivessel coronary artery disease, how does the application of the FAME trial's findings impact the number of stents deployed and the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE)?
Key Response
The FAME trial demonstrated that an FFR-guided strategy, using a cutoff of ≤0.80 to determine if a lesion should be stented, significantly reduced the average number of stents per patient (2.7 vs 1.9) compared to an angiography-guided strategy. Despite fewer interventions, the FFR-guided group had a significantly lower 1-year MACE rate (death, MI, or repeat revascularization), proving that 'less is more' when PCI is guided by functional significance rather than visual appearance.
Discuss the clinical significance of the 'ischemic threshold' of 0.80 used in the FAME trial versus the 0.75 threshold used in earlier physiological studies like DEFER. How should a fellow manage a 'gray zone' lesion (FFR 0.76-0.80)?
Key Response
While early studies like DEFER used 0.75 to define ischemia with high specificity, FAME used 0.80 to increase sensitivity for identifying lesions that might cause MACE. The FAME results validated 0.80 as a safe and effective clinical threshold. For lesions in the 0.76-0.80 'gray zone,' fellows must integrate clinical context (e.g., symptoms, non-invasive imaging, and lesion location), but FAME suggests that treating these lesions as hemodynamically significant leads to better outcomes in the context of multivessel disease.
How does the FAME trial influence the conversation regarding 'appropriate use criteria' for PCI in patients with multivessel disease who might otherwise be considered candidates for CABG based on the SYNTAX score?
Key Response
FAME introduced the 'Functional SYNTAX Score,' which recalculates the anatomical SYNTAX score by only counting lesions that are hemodynamically significant (FFR ≤0.80). This often reclassifies patients from high-risk to low- or intermediate-risk categories, potentially shifting the recommendation from CABG to PCI. It teaches that physiological assessment is a critical component of the heart team's decision-making process for complex coronary disease.
Scholarly Review
Critical appraisal through the lens of expert reviewers and guideline development
Analyze the potential for 'ascertainment bias' in the FAME trial's secondary endpoints and evaluate how the use of a composite MACE endpoint might mask the individual contributions of mortality versus elective revascularization.
Key Response
In FAME, the primary endpoint was a composite of death, MI, and repeat revascularization. Because the operators were not blinded to the FFR results (unblinded treatment allocation), their subsequent clinical decisions regarding repeat revascularization could be biased. If a patient in the angiography group returned with chest pain, the knowledge of their 'un-stented' intermediate lesions might lead to lower thresholds for repeat PCI compared to the FFR group, artificially inflating the MACE rate in the angiography arm.
As a reviewer, evaluate the generalizability of the FAME trial results given the exclusion of patients with left main disease, previous CABG, or recent ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
Key Response
The exclusion of these high-risk cohorts limits the study's external validity to the broader 'real-world' PCI population. In STEMI, microvascular dysfunction in the acute phase can lead to falsely elevated FFR readings in non-culprit vessels, rendering the 0.80 threshold unreliable. A critical reviewer would flag that while FAME is landmark for stable multivessel disease, its protocol cannot be reflexively applied to acute coronary syndromes or complex left main pathology without further evidence (like the subsequent FAMOUS-NSTEMI or FLOWER-MI trials).
Based on the evidence from FAME and FAME 2, what is the current strength of recommendation in the ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines for the use of FFR in stable patients with multivessel disease, and how does this compare to the recommendation for intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)?
Key Response
Current ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines provide a Class 1 (Level of Evidence: A) recommendation for using FFR to assess the functional significance of intermediate coronary stenoses (50-90%) before PCI. In contrast, while IVUS is highly recommended for optimizing stent deployment and assessing left main disease (Class 1-2a depending on the guideline), FFR is the gold standard for the initial decision to intervene in non-left-main lesions because it is specifically validated against outcomes for ischemia, whereas IVUS provides anatomical rather than physiological data.
Clinical Landscape
Noteworthy Related Trials
DEFER Trial
Tested
PCI for intermediate stenoses with FFR > 0.75
Population
Patients with single-vessel disease and intermediate coronary stenosis
Comparator
Deferral of PCI based on FFR > 0.75
Endpoint
Event-free survival at 5 years
FAME 2 Trial
Tested
FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy
Population
Patients with stable coronary artery disease and at least one functionally significant stenosis
Comparator
Best medical therapy alone
Endpoint
Composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization
FAME 3 Trial
Tested
FFR-guided PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents
Population
Patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease
Comparator
Coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG)
Endpoint
Composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1 year
Tailored to your role
Want this tailored to you?
Add your specialty or training stage to get role-specific takeaways and more questions.
Personalize this analysis