CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

血管内超声指导

Abstract

Recommended Article

Optical coherence tomography is a kid on the block: I would choose intravascular ultrasound Intravascular ultrasound guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention in ostial chronic total occlusions: a description of the technique and procedural results IVUS Guidance Is Associated With Better Outcome in Patients Undergoing Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting Compared With Angiography Guidance Alone Successful Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Bifurcation Lesion Using Minimum Contrast Volume with Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Intravascular ultrasound guidance in drug-eluting stents implantation: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary bifurcation lesions: a review Clinical Outcomes Following Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Coronary Angiography–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stent Implantation: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 31 Studies and 17,882 Patients In Vivo Calcium Detection by Comparing Optical Coherence Tomography, Intravascular Ultrasound, and Angiography
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...>>|

Review Article2018 Feb 1;252:63-67.

JOURNAL：Int J Cardiol. Article Link

FFR-guided multivessel stenting reduces urgent revascularization compared with infarct-related artery only stenting in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Gupta A, Bajaj NS, Bhatt DL et al. Keywords: FFR; Meta-analysis; Multivessel; PCI; STEMI; Stenting

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown fractional flow reserve-guided (FFR) multivessel stenting to be superior to infarct-related artery (IRA) only stenting in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. This effect was mainly driven by a reduction in overall repeat revascularization. However, the ability to assess the effect of this strategy on urgent revascularization or reinfarction was underpowered in individual trials.


METHODS - We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science for RCTs of FFR-guided multivessel stenting versus IRA-only stenting in STEMI with multivessel disease. The outcomes of interest were death, reinfarction, urgent, and non-urgent repeat revascularization. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.


RESULTS - After review of 786 citations, 2 RCTs were included. The pooled results demonstrated a significant reduction in the composite of death, reinfarction, or revascularization in the FFR-guided multivessel stenting group versus IRA-only stenting group (RR [95%, Confidence Interval]: 0.49 [0.33-0.72], p<0.001). This risk reduction was driven mainly by a reduction in repeat revascularization, both urgent (0.41 [0.24-0.71], p=0.002) and non-urgent revascularization (0.31 [0.19-0.50], p<0.001). Pooled RR for reinfarction was lower in the FFR-guided strategy, but was not statistically significant (0.71[0.39-1.31], p=0.28).


CONCLUSIONS - This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that a strategy of FFR-guided multivessel stenting in STEMI patients reduces not only overall repeat revascularization but also urgent revascularization. The effect on reinfarction needs to be evaluated in larger trials.


Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

>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