CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Left-main restenosis in the DES era-a call for action Current Interventions for the Left Main Bifurcation One or two stents for the distal Left Main bifurcation The DK crush V study - The DK crush V study Left Main Revascularization in 2017 Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Comparison of double kissing crush versus Culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions: results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective DKCRUSH-III study Design and rationale for the treatment effects of provisional side branch stenting and DK crush stenting techniques in patients with unprotected distal left main coronary artery bifurcation lesions (DKCRUSH V) Trial Usefulness of the SYNTAX score II to validate 2-year outcomes in patients with complex coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A large single-center study Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting for Left Main Distal Bifurcation Lesions: DKCRUSH-V Randomized Trial

Original ResearchVolume 72, Issue 18, October 2018

JOURNAL:JACC Article Link

Coronary CT Angiographic and Flow Reserve-Guided Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

BL Nørgaard, CJ Terkelsen, ON Mathiassen et al. Keywords: computed tomography; angiography; coronary angiography; coronary artery disease; fractional flow reserve

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Clinical outcomes following coronary computed tomographyderived fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) testing in clinical practice are unknown.


OBJECTIVES -  This study sought to assess real-world clinical outcomes following a diagnostic strategy including first-line coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) with selective FFRCT testing.


METHODS -  The study reviewed the results of 3,674 consecutive patients with stable chest pain evaluated with CTA and FFRCT testing to guide downstream management in patients with intermediate stenosis (30% to 70%). The composite endpoint (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, and unplanned revascularization) was determined in 4 patient groups: 1) CTA stenosis <30%, optimal medical treatment (OMT), and no additional testing; 2) FFRCT >0.80, OMT, no additional testing; 3) FFRCT 0.80, OMT, no additional testing; and 4) FFRCT 0.80, OMT, and referral to invasive coronary angiography. Patients were followed for a median of 24 (range 8 to 41) months.


RESULTS - FFRCT was available in 677 patients, and the test result was negative (>0.80) in 410 (61%) patients. In 75% of the patients with FFRCT >0.80, maximum coronary stenosis was 50%. The cumulative incidence proportion (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the composite endpoint at the end of follow-up was comparable in groups 1 (2.8%; 95% CI: 1.4% to 4.9%) and 2 (3.9%; 95% CI: 2.0% to 6.9%) (p = 0.58) but was higher (when compared with group 1) in groups 3 (9.4%; p = 0.04) and 4 (6.6%; p = 0.08). Risk of myocardial infarction was lower in group 4 (1.3%) than in group 3 (8%; p < 0.001).


CONCLUSIONS -  In patients with intermediate-range coronary stenosis, FFRCT is effective in differentiating patients who do not require further diagnostic testing or intervention (FFRCT >0.80) from higher-risk patients (FFRCT 0.80) in whom further testing with invasive coronary angiography and possibly intervention may be needed. Further studies assessing the risk and optimal management strategy in patients undergoing first-line CTA with selective FFRCT testing are needed.