scholarly journals Comparing treatment outcomes of fractional flow reserve-guided and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiancheng Xiu ◽  
Gangbin Chen ◽  
Hua Zheng ◽  
Yuegang Wang ◽  
Haibin Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Vessel Coronary Artery

Purpose: Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used to assess the need for angioplasty in vessels with intermediate blockages. The treatment outcomes of FFR-guided vs. conventional angiography-guided PCI were evaluated in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: Prospective and retrospective studies comparing FFR-guided vs. angiography-guided PCI in patients with multi-vessel CAD were identified from medical databases by two independent reviewers using the terms “percutaneous coronary intervention, fractional flow reserve, angiography, coronary heart disease, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and myocardial infarction”. The primary outcome was the number of stents placed, and the secondary outcomes were procedure time, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and MACE rates. Results: Seven studies (three retrospective and four prospective), which included 49,517 patients, were included in this review. A total of 4,755 patients underwent FFR, while 44,697 received angiography-guided PCI. The mean patient age ranged from 58 to 71.7 years. The average number of stents used in FFR patients ranged from 0.3-1.9, and in angiography-guided PCI patients ranged from 0.7-2.7. Analysis indicated there was a greater number of stents placed in the angiography-guided group compared with the FFR group (pooled difference in means: -0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.81 to -0.47, P < 0.001). There were no differences in the secondary outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions: Both procedures produce similar clinical outcomes, but the fewer number of stents used with FFR may have clinical as was as cost implications.

scholarly journals Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) to Avoid Inappropriate Stenting in Patient with Angiographically Significant Stenotic Coronary Artery Lesion–Our Experiences at Apollo Hospitals Dhaka

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-43
Author(s):  
AHM Waliul Islam ◽  
Shams Munwar ◽  
Azfar Hossain ◽  
AQM Reza ◽  
Sahabuddin Talukder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Physiological Study ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

Background: Importance of Physiological study by Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) in the management of patient with coronary artery disease (CAD is well established. Objective: Angiographic-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common practice in Bangladeshi interventional era. Data on Pre-PCI physiological study by Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) in our patient is not available. Therefore, our primary aim was to perform pre-PCI FFR to assess the angiographically significant coronary stenosis and thus to avoid inappropriate stenting. Methods: Total 22 patients (Male 20, Female 2) were enrolled in this observational non-randomized prospective cohort. Patient who had angiographically significant lesion, planned for physiological study by pre-PCI FFR. Cut off value for FFR were clinically significant only if Pd/Pa ratio <0.75 and differed stenting if > 0.76-0.80 or above. Results: In the studied patient population, FFR done in total 27 vessels of 22 patients. Among the vessel wise FFR distribution were in LAD 67%(18), LCX 14.8%(4), RCA 14.8%(4) and Ramus Intermedius 3.7% (1). FFR was nonsignificant (<0.75) in 59% (13) patients and significant (>0.75) were in 41%(9) patients. Conclusion: In this single center, very preliminary observational prospective cohort of non-randomized study, we found, that FFR is an important aid to perform PCI in patient with angiographically significant coronary lesion, and to avoid inappropriate stenting of insignificant stenosis by physiological study. Thus, to reduce cost and untoward effects of inappropriate stenting. Bangladesh Heart Journal 2019; 34(1) : 37-43

scholarly journals Global Fractional Flow Reserve Value Predicts 5‐Year Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Atherosclerosis But Without Ischemia

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (24) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephane Fournier ◽  
Carlos Collet ◽  
Panagiotis Xaplanteris ◽  
Frederik M. Zimmermann ◽  
Gabor G. Toth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Significant Stenosis ◽  
Atherosclerotic Burden ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

Background Global fractional flow reserve (FFR) (ie, the sum of the FFR values in the 3 major coronary arteries) is a physiologic correlate of global atherosclerotic burden. The objective of the present study was to investigate the value of global FFR in predicting long‐term clinical outcome of patients with stable coronary artery disease but no ischemia‐inducing stenosis. Methods and Results We studied major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs: all‐cause death, myocardial infarction, and any revascularization) after 5 years in 1122 patients without significant stenosis (all FFR >0.80; n=275) or with at least 1 significant stenosis successfully treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (ie, post–percutaneous coronary intervention FFR >0.80; n=847). The patients were stratified into low, mid, or high tertiles of global FFR (≤2.80, 2.80–2.88, and ≥2.88). Patients in the lowest tertile of global FFR showed the highest 5‐year MACE rate compared with those in the mid or high tertile of global FFR (27.5% versus 22.0% and 20.9%, respectively; log‐rank P =0.040). The higher 5‐year MACE rate was mainly driven by a higher rate of revascularization in the low global FFR group (16.4% versus 11.3% and 11.8%, respectively; log‐rank P =0.038). In a multivariable model, an increase in global FFR of 0.1 unit was associated with a significant reduction in the rates of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.988; 95% CI, 0.977–0.998; P =0.023), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.982; 95% CI, 0.966–0.998; P =0.032), and revascularization (HR, 0.985; 95% CI, 0.972–0.999; P =0.040). Conclusions Even in the absence of ischemia‐producing stenoses, patients with a low global FFR, physiologic correlate of global atherosclerotic burden, present a higher risk of MACE at 5‐year follow‐up.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease

2014 ◽  
Vol 155 (49) ◽  
pp. 1952-1959
Author(s):  
Zsolt Piróth
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Stable Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Artery Disease

Percutaneous coronary intervention is a well-established symptomatic therapy of stable coronary artery disease. Using a literature search with special emphasis on the newly-published FAME 2 trial data, the author wanted to explore why percutaneous coronary intervention fails to reduce mortality and myocardial infarction in stable coronary artery disease, as opposed to surgical revascularisation. In the FAME 2 trial, fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention with second generation drug eluting stents showed a significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint of 2-year mortality, myocardial infarction and unplanned hospitalization with urgent revascularisation as compared to medical therapy alone. In addition, landmark analysis showed that after 8 days, mortality and myocardial infarction were significantly reduced. The author concludes that percutaneous coronary intervention involving fractional flow reserve guidance and modern stents offers symptomatic, as well as prognostic benefit. Orv. Hetil., 2014, 155(49), 1952–1959.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document