FAME 2 2012ESC演讲PPT.ppt

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI versus Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Disease FAME 2 C NC Bernard De Bruyne, Nico H.J. Pijls, William F Fearon, Peter Juni, Emanuele Barbato, Pim Tonino, for the FAME 2 study group FAME 2 : FFR-Guided PCI versus Medical Therapy in Stable CAD Potential conflicts of interest Speaker’s name: Bernard De Bruyne ? I have the following potential conflicts of interest to report:  ? Research contracts ? Consulting ? Employment in industry ? Stockholder of a healthcare company ? Owner of a healthcare company ? Other(s) ? I do not have any potential conflict of interest Study Supported by St. Jude Medical FAME 2 : FFR-Guided PCI versus Medical Therapy in Stable CAD Background In patients with stable coronary disease, PCI has not been shown to improve prognosis FAME 1 demonstrated the superiority of FFR-guided over angiography-guided PCI In previous trials, revascularization has been guided by the angiographic appearance of the lesions It is likely that in previous trials a sizable proportion of patients had no or little ischemia FAME 2 : FFR-Guided PCI versus Medical Therapy in Stable CAD Objective To compare clinical outcomes of FFR- guided contemporary PCI plus the best available medical therapy (MT) versus MT alone in patients with stable coronary disease FAME 2 : FFR-Guided PCI versus Medical Therapy in Stable CAD Inclusion Criteria Referred for PCI because of Stable angina pectoris (CCS 1, 2, 3) Stabilized angina pectoris CCS class 4 Atypical or no chest pain with documented ischemia And Angiographic 1, 2, or 3 vessel disease FAME 2 : FFR-Guided PCI versus Medical Therapy in Stable CAD FAME 2 : FFR-Guided PCI versus Medical Therapy in Stable CAD Exclusion Criteria Prior CABG LVEF 30% LM disease Primary End Point FAME 2 : FFR-Guided PCI versus Medical Therapy i