scholarly journals Deferral Versus Performance of Revascularization for Coronary Stenosis With Grey Zone Fractional Flow Reserve Values: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Angiology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Du ◽  
Yan Liu ◽  
Gaojun Cai ◽  
Bangguo Yang ◽  
Yujing Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Coronary Stenosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Grey Zone ◽  
Cardiac Events ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Target Vessel Revascularization ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
Inverse Variance

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies using fractional flow reserve (FFR) to determine whether revascularization should be performed or deferred for patients with coronary stenosis and grey zone FFR. Meta-analysis was performed using the generic inverse variance method, and hazard ratios (HR) were synthesized with a random-effects model. Of 2766 records, 7 nonrandomized studies including 2683 patients were selected. The pooled results demonstrated, during a median follow-up of 32 months, that revascularization significantly reduced the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; 7 studies: HR [95% confidence interval, CI]: 0.65 [0.45-0.93], P = .02) and target vessel revascularization (TVR; 4 studies: HR [95% CI]: 0.52 [0.36-0.76], P < .01). Whereas revascularization was not significantly superior in terms of all-cause death (3 studies: HR [95% CI]: 0.56 [0.26-1.22], P = .14), cardiac death (2 studies: HR [95% CI]: 0.57 [0.16-2.01], P = .38), myocardial infarction (MI; 4 studies: HR [95% CI]: 1.03 [0.26-4.03]), and all-cause death or MI (3 studies: HR [95% CI]: 0.66 [0.20-2.19], P = .50). Therefore, revascularization appeared to be superior to deferral for patients with grey zone FFR in MACE and TVR, while hard end points did not show such significance. This work was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019118432).

scholarly journals Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Fractional Flow Reserve versus Quantitative Flow Ratio for Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenoses

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Ruitao Zhang ◽  
Jianwei Zhang ◽  
Lijun Guo
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Coronary Stenosis ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Flow Ratio ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
Quantitative Flow Ratio ◽  
Quantitative Flow

Background. Use of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) technique is recommended to evaluate coronary stenosis severity and guide revascularization. However, its high cost, time to administer, and the side effects of adenosine reduce its clinical utility. Two novel adenosine-free indices, contrast-FFR (cFFR) and quantitative flow ratio (QFR), can simplify the functional evaluation of coronary stenosis. This study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of cFFR and QFR using FFR as a reference index. Methods. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in which cFFR or QFR was compared to FFR. A bivariate model was applied to pool diagnostic parameters. Cochran’s Q test and the I2 index were used to assess heterogeneity and identify the potential source of heterogeneity by metaregression and sensitivity analysis. Results. Overall, 2220 and 3000 coronary lesions from 20 studies were evaluated by cFFR and QFR, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.91) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.94) for cFFR and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.91) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87, 0.93) for QFR, respectively. No statistical significance of sensitivity and specificity for cFFR and QFR were observed in the bivariate analysis (P=0.8406 and 0.4397, resp.). The area under summary receiver-operating curve of cFFR and QFR was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.97) for cFFR and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.97). Conclusion. Both cFFR and QFR have good diagnostic performance in detecting functional severity of coronary arteries and showed similar diagnostic parameters.

scholarly journals Deferred vs. performed revascularization for coronary stenosis with grey-zone fractional flow reserve values: data from the IRIS-FFR registry

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (18) ◽  
pp. 1610-1619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Do-Yoon Kang ◽  
Jung-Min Ahn ◽  
Cheol Hyun Lee ◽  
Pil Hyung Lee ◽  
Duk-Woo Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Coronary Stenosis ◽  
Grey Zone ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Flow Reserve

Fractional Flow Reserve: Does a Cut-off Value add Value?

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Shah R Mohdnazri ◽  
◽  
◽  
◽  
Thomas R Keeble ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Grey Zone ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Invasive Test ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
A Value ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Value Add

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been shown to improve outcomes when used to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There have been two proposed cut-off points for FFR. The first was derived by comparing FFR against a series of non-invasive tests, with a value of ≤0.75 shown to predict a positive ischaemia test. It was then shown in the DEFER study that a vessel FFR value of ≥0.75 was associated with safe deferral of PCI. During the validation phase, a ‘grey zone’ for FFR values of between 0.76 and 0.80 was demonstrated, where a positive non-invasive test may still occur, but sensitivity and specificity were sub-optimal. Clinical judgement was therefore advised for values in this range. The FAME studies then moved the FFR cut-off point to ≤0.80, with a view to predicting outcomes. The ≤0.80 cut-off point has been adopted into clinical practice guidelines, whereas the lower value of ≤0.75 is no longer widely used. Here, the authors discuss the data underpinning these cut-off values and the practical implications for their use when using FFR guidance in PCI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document