Abstract
Background
Evaluation of hemodynamic parameters, such as fractional flow reserve (FFR), is recommended before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with angina pectoris (AP). However, the advantage of FFR-guided PCI has not been fully established. A network meta-analysis (NMA) synthesizes the results of studies on multiple competing interventions. Moreover, no NMA has evaluated randomized controlled trials for AP to compare FFR-guided PCI and other treatments. To clarify whether FFR-guided PCI improves the prognosis in patients with AP, we performed this study.
Methods
Multiple databases were searched for studies published from 2000 to 2018. The search terms were based on Medical Subject Headings and keywords including “angioplasty”, “coronary artery bypass”, “percutaneous coronary intervention”, “coronary disease”, and “randomized controlled trial”. And an NMA was performed to compare outcomes of FFR-guided PCI, non-FFR-guided PCI, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and medical treatment (MT) for AP based on estimated odds ratios (ORs). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were the occurrence of MI. Treatments were ranked by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.
Results
The study included 18,093 patients from 15 randomized controlled trials. No evidence of inconsistency was observed among the studies. The NMA showed that the all-cause mortality of FFR-guided PCI was not significantly different from that of the other treatment groups (CABG: OR, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67–1.7; non-FFR-guided PCI: OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.53–1.4; and MT: OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.52–1.3). The NMA for myocardial infarction, which included 13,548 patients from 11 randomized controlled trials, showed that FFR-guided PCI tended to reduce the occurrence of myocardial infarction compared with MT (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36–1.0). According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, CABG was the best treatment, followed by FFR-guided PCI, non-FFR-guided PCI, and MT.
Conclusions
FFR-guided PCI for AP showed no significant prognostic improvement compared with non-FFR-guided PCI, CABG, and MT. CABG was the best treatment for AP, followed by FFR-guided PCI, non-FFR-guided PCI, and MT.
Network plot and interval plot
Funding Acknowledgement
Type of funding source: None
Comparing the adverse clinical outcomes associated with fraction flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
