CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

Acute Coronary Syndrom

科研文章

荐读文献

Canadian SCAD Cohort Study: Shedding Light on SCAD From a United Front Percutaneous Intervention for Concurrent Chronic Total Occlusions in Patients With STEMI: The EXPLORE Trial Effects of clopidogrel vs. prasugrel vs. ticagrelor on endothelial function, inflammatory parameters, and platelet function in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary artery stenting: a randomized, blinded, parallel study SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019 Intravenous Statin Administration During Myocardial Infarction Compared With Oral Post-Infarct Administration Dynamic Myocardial Ultrasound Localization Angiography Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial Considerations for Single-Measurement Risk-Stratification Strategies for Myocardial Infarction Using Cardiac Troponin Assays High-sensitivity troponin in the evaluation of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome: a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial Acute Myocardial Injury in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Infection: A Review

Clinical Trial2015 Jan 7;36(2):100-11.

JOURNAL:Eur Heart J. Article Link

Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial

Layland J, Oldroyd KG, FAMOUS–NSTEMI investigators. Keywords: Acute coronary syndrome; Coronary revascularization; Fractional flow reserve; Medical therapy; Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction

ABSTRACT


AIM - We assessed the management and outcomes of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients randomly assigned to fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided management or angiography-guided standard care.


METHODS AND RESULTS - We conducted a prospective, multicentre, parallel group, 1 : 1 randomized, controlled trial in 350 NSTEMI patients with ≥1 coronary stenosis ≥30% of the lumen diameter assessed visually (threshold for FFR measurement) (NCT01764334). Enrolment took place in six UK hospitals from October 2011 to May 2013. Fractional flow reserve was disclosed to the operator in the FFR-guided group (n = 176). Fractional flow reserve was measured but not disclosed in the angiography-guided group (n = 174). Fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 was an indication for revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). The median (IQR) time from the index episode of myocardial ischaemia to angiography was 3 (2, 5) days. For the primary outcome, the proportion of patients treated initially by medical therapy was higher in the FFR-guided group than in the angiography-guided group [40 (22.7%) vs. 23 (13.2%), difference 95% (95% CI: 1.4%, 17.7%), P = 0.022]. Fractional flow reserve disclosure resulted in a change in treatment between medical therapy, PCI or CABG in 38 (21.6%) patients. At 12 months, revascularization remained lower in the FFR-guided group [79.0 vs. 86.8%, difference 7.8% (-0.2%, 15.8%), P = 0.054]. There were no statistically significant differences in health outcomes and quality of life between the groups.

CONCLUSION - In NSTEMI patients, angiography-guided management was associated with higher rates of coronary revascularization compared with FFR-guided management. A larger trial is necessary to assess health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.