CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

Triage Considerations for Patients Referred for Structural Heart Disease Intervention During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: An ACC /SCAI Consensus Statement Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes Evaluation and Management of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI Post-Discharge Bleeding and Mortality Following Acute Coronary Syndromes With or Without PCI Effect of Smoking on Outcomes of Primary PCI in Patients With STEMI New technologies for intensive prevention programs after myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the NET-IPP trial Heart Regeneration by Endogenous Stem Cells and Cardiomyocyte Proliferation: Controversy, Fallacy, and Progress Effect of Pre-Hospital Crushed Prasugrel Tablets in Patients with STEMI Planned for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Randomized COMPARE CRUSH Trial Comparison in prevalence, predictors, and clinical outcome of VSR versus FWR after acute myocardial infarction: The prospective, multicenter registry MOODY trial-heart rupture analysis Imaging Coronary Anatomy and Reducing Myocardial Infarction

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.