{"title":"Fractional flow reserve-guided renal artery stenting in atherosclerotic renovascular hypertension: the FAIR randomized trial.","authors":"Yuxi Li,Jingang Zheng,Chengzhi Lu,Fangfang Fan,Zhihao Liu,Shengcong Liu,Tieci Yi,Long Zhang,Haoyu Weng,Beining Wang,Xu Liu,Hui Zhou,Dengfeng Ma,Zhi Jia,Li Xiang,Renqiang Yang,Dongmei Shi,Hui Chen,Li Xu,Cun Liu,Kazuomi Kario,Yan Zhang,Jianping Li","doi":"10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND AND AIMS\r\nThe optimal therapy for patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) remains unresolved. This study compared the efficacy of renal fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization and traditional angiography-guided revascularization.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nIn total, 101 patients with ARAS and hypertension were randomly assigned to either the FFR-guided or angiography-guided group (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05732077). Stenting was performed in the angiography-guided group regardless of FFR, whereas stenting was only performed in the FFR-guided group for patients with FFR < 0.80. The primary endpoints were the percentage changes in ambulatory daytime mean systolic blood pressure (DMSBP) and composite index of antihypertensive medicines (CIAHM) after 3 months.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThe percentage changes in DMSBP (4% [-2%, 11%] vs 4% [-3%, 10%]; P = .97) and CIAHM (0% [0%, 3%] vs 1% [0%, 4%]; P = .33) did not differ between groups. However, the rate of stenting was significantly lower in the FFR-guided group (46.0% vs 100.0%, P < .01). Moreover, compared with the findings in patients with FFR ≥ 0.80 who did not receive stenting, stenting was beneficial in patients with FFR < 0.80 (adjusted mean DMSBP reduction, 6.2 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.6-11.9] mmHg; mean CIAHM reduction, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.5-4.7]), but not in those with FFR ≥ 0.80 (1.4 [95% CI, -4.5-7.2] mmHg, and 0.7 [95% CI, -1.1-2.5], respectively).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nFFR-guided revascularization significantly reduced unnecessary stenting compared with angiography-guided revascularization. Both blood pressure and antihypertensive medication usage decreased significantly after stenting in patients with FFR < 0.80.","PeriodicalId":11976,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal","volume":"93 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":35.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf746","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The optimal therapy for patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) remains unresolved. This study compared the efficacy of renal fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization and traditional angiography-guided revascularization.
METHODS
In total, 101 patients with ARAS and hypertension were randomly assigned to either the FFR-guided or angiography-guided group (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05732077). Stenting was performed in the angiography-guided group regardless of FFR, whereas stenting was only performed in the FFR-guided group for patients with FFR < 0.80. The primary endpoints were the percentage changes in ambulatory daytime mean systolic blood pressure (DMSBP) and composite index of antihypertensive medicines (CIAHM) after 3 months.
RESULTS
The percentage changes in DMSBP (4% [-2%, 11%] vs 4% [-3%, 10%]; P = .97) and CIAHM (0% [0%, 3%] vs 1% [0%, 4%]; P = .33) did not differ between groups. However, the rate of stenting was significantly lower in the FFR-guided group (46.0% vs 100.0%, P < .01). Moreover, compared with the findings in patients with FFR ≥ 0.80 who did not receive stenting, stenting was beneficial in patients with FFR < 0.80 (adjusted mean DMSBP reduction, 6.2 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.6-11.9] mmHg; mean CIAHM reduction, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.5-4.7]), but not in those with FFR ≥ 0.80 (1.4 [95% CI, -4.5-7.2] mmHg, and 0.7 [95% CI, -1.1-2.5], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
FFR-guided revascularization significantly reduced unnecessary stenting compared with angiography-guided revascularization. Both blood pressure and antihypertensive medication usage decreased significantly after stenting in patients with FFR < 0.80.
期刊介绍:
The European Heart Journal is a renowned international journal that focuses on cardiovascular medicine. It is published weekly and is the official journal of the European Society of Cardiology. This peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing high-quality clinical and scientific material pertaining to all aspects of cardiovascular medicine. It covers a diverse range of topics including research findings, technical evaluations, and reviews. Moreover, the journal serves as a platform for the exchange of information and discussions on various aspects of cardiovascular medicine, including educational matters.
In addition to original papers on cardiovascular medicine and surgery, the European Heart Journal also presents reviews, clinical perspectives, ESC Guidelines, and editorial articles that highlight recent advancements in cardiology. Additionally, the journal actively encourages readers to share their thoughts and opinions through correspondence.