Fractional flow reserve use in coronary artery revascularization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
| Autor: | Sanz Sánchez J; Hospital Universitari i Politecnic La Fe, Valencia, Spain.; Centro de Investigación Biomedica en Red (CIBERCV), Madrid, Spain., Farjat Pasos JI; Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec, Quebec, Canada., Martinez Solé J; Hospital Universitari i Politecnic La Fe, Valencia, Spain., Hussain B; Internal Medicine, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA., Kumar S; MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA., Garg M; MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA., Chiarito M; IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy., Teira Calderón A; Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain., Sorolla-Romero JA; Hospital Universitari i Politecnic La Fe, Valencia, Spain., Echavarria Pinto M; Hospital General ISSSTE Querétaro, Querétaro, México.; Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, Querétaro, México., Shin ES; Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea., Diez Gil JL; Hospital Universitari i Politecnic La Fe, Valencia, Spain.; Centro de Investigación Biomedica en Red (CIBERCV), Madrid, Spain., Waksman R; MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA., van de Hoef TP; Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands., Garcia-Garcia HM; MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA. |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | IScience [iScience] 2023 Jul 03; Vol. 26 (8), pp. 107245. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Jul 03 (Print Publication: 2023). |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.isci.2023.107245 |
| Abstrakt: | Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is recommended in revascularization guidelines for intermediate lesions. However, recent studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization have reported conflicting results. PubMed and Embase were searched for studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization strategies (angiography-guided, intracoronary imaging-guided, coronary artery bypass grafting). Data were pooled by meta-analysis using random-effects model. 26 studies enrolling 78,897 patients were included. FFR-guided PCI as compared to non-physiology-guided coronary revascularization had lower risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.79 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.99, I 2 = 53%) and myocardial infarction (MI) (OR 0.74 95% CI 0.59-0.93, I 2 = 44.7%). However, no differences between groups were found in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (OR 0.86 95% CI 0.72-1.03, I 2 = 72.3%) and repeat revascularization (OR 1 95% CI 0.82-1.20, I 2 = 43.2%). Among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), FFR-guided PCI as compared to non-physiology-guided revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and MI. Competing Interests: Hector Garcia-Garcia reports the following institutional grant support: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott, Neovasc, Shockwave, Phillips, and Corflow. Jorge Sanz Sánchez has received minor speaking honoraria from Terumo, Cordis, Biotronik, and Medtronic. The rest of authors have no disclosures to declare. (© 2023 The Authors.) |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|