All

What are you looking for?

All
Projects
Results
Organizations

Quick search

  • Projects supported by TA ČR
  • Excellent projects
  • Projects with the highest public support
  • Current projects

Smart search

  • That is how I find a specific +word
  • That is how I leave the -word out of the results
  • “That is how I can find the whole phrase”

Outcomes after fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting (FAME 3): 5-year follow-up of a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial

The result's identifiers

  • Result code in IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F65269705%3A_____%2F25%3A00081818" target="_blank" >RIV/65269705:_____/25:00081818 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Alternative codes found

    RIV/00216224:14110/25:00143876

  • Result on the web

    <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673625005057" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673625005057</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00505-7" target="_blank" >10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00505-7</a>

Alternative languages

  • Result language

    angličtina

  • Original language name

    Outcomes after fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting (FAME 3): 5-year follow-up of a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial

  • Original language description

    Background: Long-term outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) might be changing because of improved techniques and better medical therapy. This final prespecified analysis of the Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) 3 trial aimed to reassess their comparative effectiveness at 5 years. Methods: FAME 3 was a multicentre, randomised trial comparing FFR-guided PCI using current-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents versus CABG in patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease not involving the left main coronary artery. 48 hospitals in Europe, USA and Canada, Australia, and Asia participated in the trial. Patients (aged GREATER-THAN OR EQUAL TO21 years with no cardiogenic shock, no recent ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, no severe left ventricular dysfunction, and no previous CABG) were randomly assigned to either PCI or CABG using a web-based system. At 1 year, FFR-guided PCI did not meet the prespecified threshold for non-inferiority for the outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularisation versus CABG. The primary endpoint for this intention-to-treat analysis was the 5-year incidence of the prespecified composite outcome of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02100722, and is completed; this is the final report. Findings: Between Aug 25, 2014 and Nov 28, 2019, 757 of 1500 participants were assigned to PCI and 743 to CABG. 5-year follow-up was achieved in 724 (96%) patients assigned to PCI and 696 (94%) assigned to CABG. At 5 years, there was no significant difference in the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction between the two groups, with 119 (16%) events in the PCI group and 101 (14%) in the CABG group (hazard ratio 1.16 [95% CI 0.89MINUS SIGN 1.52]; p=0.27). There were no differences in the rates of death (53 [7%] vs 51 [7%]; 0.99 [0.67MINUS SIGN 1.46]) or stroke (14 [2%] vs 21 [3%], 0.65 [0.33MINUS SIGN 1.28]), but myocardial infarction was higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group (60 [8%] vs 38 [5%], 1.57 [1.04MINUS SIGN 2.36]), as was repeat revascularisation (112 [16%] vs 55 [8%], 2.02 [1.46MINUS SIGN 2.79]). Interpretation: At the 5-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in a composite outcome of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction after FFR-guided PCI versus CABG, although myocardial infarction and repeat revascularisation were higher with PCI. These results provide contemporary evidence to allow improved shared decision making between physicians and patients.

  • Czech name

  • Czech description

Classification

  • Type

    J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

  • CEP classification

  • OECD FORD branch

    30218 - General and internal medicine

Result continuities

  • Project

  • Continuities

    I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Others

  • Publication year

    2025

  • Confidentiality

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Data specific for result type

  • Name of the periodical

    Lancet

  • ISSN

    0140-6736

  • e-ISSN

    1474-547X

  • Volume of the periodical

    405

  • Issue of the periodical within the volume

    10488

  • Country of publishing house

    US - UNITED STATES

  • Number of pages

    10

  • Pages from-to

    1481-1490

  • UT code for WoS article

    001480592800001

  • EID of the result in the Scopus database

    2-s2.0-105001478709