CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Scientific Library

Abstract

Recommended Article

Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI T and small protrusion (TAP) vs double kissing crush technique: Insights from in-vitro models Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Patients Undergoing Multivessel PCI Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After PCI: An Individual Patient-Level Meta-Analysis Global Approach to High Bleeding Risk Patients With Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents: The LF II Study Pooled Analysis of Bleeding, Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events, and All-Cause Mortality in Clinical Trials of Time-Constrained Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Long-term pharmacodynamic effects of Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in fibrinolytic-treated STEMI patients undergoing early PCI Sildenafil for improving outcomes in patients with corrected valvular heart disease and persistent pulmonary hypertension: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial
|<<... 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 ...>>|

Clinical Trial2017 May 11;376(19):1813-1823.

JOURNAL：N Engl J Med. Article Link

Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI

Götberg M, Christiansen EH, iFR-SWEDEHEART Investigators et al. Keywords: iFR; FFR; stable angina; ACS; coronary-artery stenosis; non inferiority; MACE

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is an index used to assess the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been found to have similar diagnostic accuracy. However, studies of clinical outcomes associated with the use of iFR are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse cardiac events.


METHODS - We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2037 participants with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of coronary-artery stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR. The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure.

RESULTS - A primary end-point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) in the iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 2.8; P=0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58; P=0.53); the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points. The results were similar among major subgroups. The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfort during the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS - Among patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. (Funded by Philips Volcano; iFR SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrials.gov number, 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