CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

血流储备分数

Abstract

Recommended Article

New Volumetric Analysis Method for Stent Expansion and its Correlation With Final Fractional Flow Reserve and Clinical Outcome An ILUMIEN I Substudy Utilization and Outcomes of Measuring Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation Fractional flow reserve in clinical practice: from wire-based invasive measurement to image-based computation Diagnostic accuracy of intracoronary optical coherence tomography-derived fractional flow reserve for assessment of coronary stenosis severity Diagnostic Performance of Angiogram-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: A Pooled Analysis of 5 Prospective Cohort Studies Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps) Coronary Physiology in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory

Clinical Trial2014; 371:1208-1217

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI for Stable Coronary Artery Disease

De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, FAME 2 Trial Investigators et al. Keywords: fractional flow reserve; PCI; medical therapy; outcome

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUNDWe hypothesized that in patients with stable coronary artery disease and stenosis, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed on the basis of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) would be superior to medical therapy.


METHODS - In 1220 patients with stable coronary artery disease, we assessed the FFR in all stenoses that were visible on angiography. Patients who had at least one stenosis with an FFR of 0.80 or less were randomly assigned to undergo FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy or to receive medical therapy alone. Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 received medical therapy alone and were included in a registry. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization within 2 years.

RESULTS - The rate of the primary end point was significantly lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (8.1% vs. 19.5%; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.57; P<0.001). This reduction was driven by a lower rate of urgent revascularization in the PCI group (4.0% vs. 16.3%; hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.38; P<0.001), with no significant between-group differences in the rates of death and myocardial infarction. Urgent revascularizations that were triggered by myocardial infarction or ischemic changes on electrocardiography were less frequent in the PCI group (3.4% vs. 7.0%, P=0.01). In a landmark analysis, the rate of death or myocardial infarction from 8 days to 2 years was lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (4.6% vs. 8.0%, P=0.04). Among registry patients, the rate of the primary end point was 9.0% at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS - In patients with stable coronary artery disease, FFR-guided PCI, as compared with medical therapy alone, improved the outcome. Patients without ischemia had a favorable outcome with medical therapy alone. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; FAME 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01132495.)