Ignite Creation Date:
2024-05-06 @ 10:56 AM
Last Modification Date:
2024-10-26 @ 12:37 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT03383718
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2020-01-02
First Post:
2017-12-19
Brief Title:
DSE vs FFR in SCAD and BYSTANDER Lesions
Sponsor:
Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Hospital
Organization:
Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Hospital
Study Overview
Official Title:
Comparison of Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography and Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Moderate Coronary Artery Disease Stable and Non-culprit Lesions Investigation
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2019-12
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
DSE-vs-FFR
Brief Summary:
Enrollment
Patients with stable coronary artery disease SCAD and moderate coronary artery stenoses 30-70
Patients with acute myocardial infarction and moderate stenosis of non-culprit arteries NCL BYSTANDER LESION
Aims
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of dobutamine stress echocardiography DSE and invasive fractional flow reserve FFR measurement
To assess the prognostic impact of reclassification by a mismatching negative test
Hypothesis
DSE and FFR have similar prognostic value in both clinical settings SCAD and NCL
Considering the strong negative predictive value of both DSE and FFR one negative test is sufficiently enough to defer revascularisation even in the case of mismatch
Patients with stable coronary artery disease SCAD and moderate coronary artery stenoses 30-70
Patients with acute myocardial infarction and moderate stenosis of non-culprit arteries NCL BYSTANDER LESION
Aims
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of dobutamine stress echocardiography DSE and invasive fractional flow reserve FFR measurement
To assess the prognostic impact of reclassification by a mismatching negative test
Hypothesis
DSE and FFR have similar prognostic value in both clinical settings SCAD and NCL
Considering the strong negative predictive value of both DSE and FFR one negative test is sufficiently enough to defer revascularisation even in the case of mismatch
Detailed Description:
Easy accessibility made fractional flow reserve FFR a widely accepted method to evaluate myocardial ischaemia in patients with moderate coronary artery stenosis although the prognostic value for hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death is equivocal
Dobutamine stress echocardiography DSE is a useful and safe non-invasive functional test for myocardial ichaemia evaluation There are robust data confirming the prognostic value of DSE regarding the same hard endpoints
In patients with SCAD there are clear recommendations in the recent guidelines both for DSE guided or FFR guided revascularization but the data about prognosis is limited especially in the case of FFR guidance The outcome is also equivocal if there is a difference between the invasive and non-invasive test result
In patients with acute myocardial infarction more than 50 of patients have multivessel disease There are clear recommendations for the management of infarct related artery however controversy still exists for the management of angiographically moderate NCLs
In DSE vs FFR prospective trial the Investigators plan to perform both the DSE and FFR tests in the above mentioned clinical settings to investigate the correlation between them The causes of differences between them would be investigated as well as the prognostic impact of reclassification by a second test either DSE or FFR
If both tests are positive revascularisation is planned to be performed PCI Group In cases of either double negative or mismatching tests optimal medical therapy will be chosen OMT Group with clinical follow up of at least 2 years
Dobutamine stress echocardiography DSE is a useful and safe non-invasive functional test for myocardial ichaemia evaluation There are robust data confirming the prognostic value of DSE regarding the same hard endpoints
In patients with SCAD there are clear recommendations in the recent guidelines both for DSE guided or FFR guided revascularization but the data about prognosis is limited especially in the case of FFR guidance The outcome is also equivocal if there is a difference between the invasive and non-invasive test result
In patients with acute myocardial infarction more than 50 of patients have multivessel disease There are clear recommendations for the management of infarct related artery however controversy still exists for the management of angiographically moderate NCLs
In DSE vs FFR prospective trial the Investigators plan to perform both the DSE and FFR tests in the above mentioned clinical settings to investigate the correlation between them The causes of differences between them would be investigated as well as the prognostic impact of reclassification by a second test either DSE or FFR
If both tests are positive revascularisation is planned to be performed PCI Group In cases of either double negative or mismatching tests optimal medical therapy will be chosen OMT Group with clinical follow up of at least 2 years
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
None