Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The prognosis of unrevascularized non-culprit lesions (NCLs) and the benefits of non-culprit percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may depend on their functional significance and location in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel coronary disease (MVD). We investigated the differential outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR) versus angiography-guided PCI for NCL between the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and non-LAD arteries. METHODS: This was a prespecified post hoc analysis of the FRAME-AMI trial. The primary endpoint, a composite of time to death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization, was matched between the two strategies according to the NCL location. RESULTS: Among 562 patients, the proportions of NCL in the LAD and non-LAD groups were 55.0% and 45.0%, respectively. PCI rates (82.2% vs. 78.3%; p=0.242) and the primary outcome (9.4% vs. 11.5%; p=0.421) were comparable between the two groups. In the non-culprit LAD group, FFR-guided PCI was associated with a lower rate of the primary outcome compared to angiography-guided PCI (5.7% vs. 14.3%, p=0.010). In the non-culprit non-LAD group, the outcome rate did not significantly differ between FFR- and angiography-guided PCI (7.4% vs. 14.5%, p=0.081). Nevertheless, the interaction between the non-culprit location and FFR- or angiography-guided PCI did not affect the primary outcome (p=0.667). CONCLUSIONS: The NCL location did not affect the favorable outcomes of FFR-guided PCI over angiography-guided PCI in patients with AMI and MVD.