Conference Coverage

In all-comer approach, FFR adds no value to angiography: RIPCORD 2


 

FROM ESC CONGRESS 2021

RIPCORD 1 results provided study rationale

In the previously published nonrandomized RIPCORD 1 study, interventionalists were asked to develop a management plan on the basis of angiography alone in 200 patients with stable chest pain. When these interventionalists were then provided with FFR results, the new information resulted in a change of management plan in 36% of cases.

According to Dr. Curzen, it was this study that raised all-comer FFR as a “logical and clinically plausible question.” RIPCORD 2 provided the answer.

While he is now conducting an evaluation of a subgroup of RIPCORD 2 patients with more severe disease, “it appears that the atheroma burden on angiography is adequate” to make an appropriate management determination in most or all cases.

The invited discussant for this study, Robert Byrne, MD, BCh, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, pointed out that more angiography-alone patients in RIPCORD 2 required additional evaluation to develop a management strategy (14.7% vs. 1.8%), but he agreed that FFR offered “no reasonable benefit” in the relatively low-risk patients who were enrolled.

Results do not alter FFR indications

However, he emphasized that the lack of an advantage in this trial should in no way diminish the evidence of benefit for selective FFR use as currently recommended in guidelines. This was echoed strongly in remarks by two other interventionalists who served on the same panel after the RIPCORD 2 results were presented.

“I want to make sure that our audience does not walk away thinking that FFR is useless. This is not what was shown,” said Roxana Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She emphasized that this was a study that found no value in a low-risk, all-comer population and is not relevant to the populations where it now has an indication.

Marco Roffi, MD, director of the interventional cardiology unit, Geneva University Hospitals, made the same point.

“These results do not take away the value of FFR in a more selected population [than that enrolled in RIPCORD 2],” Dr. Roffi said. He did not rule out the potential for benefit from adding FFR to angiography even in early disease assessment if a benefit can be demonstrated in a higher-risk population.

Dr. Curzen reports financial relationships with Abbott, Beckman Coulter, HeartFlow, and Boston Scientific, which provided funding for RIPCORD 2. Dr. Byrne reported financial relationships with the trial sponsor as well as Abbott, Biosensors, and Biotronik. Dr. Mehran reports financial relationships with more than 15 medical product companies including the sponsor of this trial. Dr. Roffi reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Thousands of patients were implanted with heart pumps that the FDA knew could be dangerous
MDedge Cardiology
Docs fight back after losing hospital privileges, patients, and income
MDedge Cardiology
‘Striking’ difference in adverse events in women with Watchman LAAO
MDedge Cardiology
FDA approves Abbott’s Amplatzer Amulet for AFib
MDedge Cardiology
What is the most likely cause of this patient’s fever?
MDedge Cardiology
Chronic kidney disease tied to worse LAAO outcomes
MDedge Cardiology
Eyes on ESC ‘21: Hope for EMPEROR-Preserved, guidelines remade
MDedge Cardiology
Colchicine effective regardless of ACS history, timing: LoDoCo2
MDedge Cardiology
Ablation at an early stage of fibrosis appears critical to improved AFib control
MDedge Cardiology
APAF-CRT: ‘Ablate and pace’ cuts mortality in narrow-QRS HF, permanent AFib
MDedge Cardiology