CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Coronary Computed Tomography–Based Fractional Flow Reserve A Rapidly Developing Field Angiographic quantitative flow ratio-guided coronary intervention (FAVOR III China): a multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes Meta-Analysis of Death and Myocardial Infarction in the DEFINE-FLAIR and iFR-SWEDEHEART Trials Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve : A Systematic Review Impact of myocardial supply area on the transstenotic hemodynamics as determined by fractional flow reserve Influence of Heart Rate on FFR Measurements: An Experimental and Clinical Validation Study
|<<... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>|

Clinical Trial2022 Mar, 79 (10) 965–974

JOURNAL：J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

5-Year Outcomes of PCI Guided by Measurement of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve

M Götberg, K Berntorp, R Rylance et al. Keywords: iFR-guided vs. FFR-guided revascularization; RCT

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a coronary physiology index used to assess the severity of coronary artery stenosis to guide revascularization. iFR has previously demonstrated noninferior short-term outcome compared to fractional flow reserve (FFR), but data on longer-term outcome have been lacking.


OBJECTIVES - The purpose of this study was to investigate the prespecified 5-year follow-up of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization of the iFR-SWEDEHEART trial comparing iFR vs FFR in patients with chronic and acute coronary syndromes.


METHODS - iFR-SWEDEHEART was a multicenter, controlled, open-label, registry-based randomized clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2,037 patients were randomized to undergo revascularization guided by iFR or FFR.


RESULTS - No patients were lost to follow-up. At 5 years, the rate of the primary composite endpoint was 21.5% in the iFR group and 19.9% in the FFR group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.90-1.33). The rates of all-cause death (9.4% vs 7.9%; HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.89-1.62), nonfatal myocardial infarction (5.7% vs 5.8%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.70-1.44), and unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs 11.3%; HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.79-1.32) were also not different between the 2 groups. The outcomes were consistent across prespecified subgroups.


CONCLUSIONS - In patients with chronic or acute coronary syndromes, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was associated with no difference in the 5-year composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization compared with an FFR-guided revascularization strategy. (Evaluation of iFR vs FFR in Stable Angina or Acute Coronary Syndrome [iFR SWEDEHEART]; NCT02166736)

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top