CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

血流储备分数

Abstract

Recommended Article

Physiology-Based Revascularization: A New Approach to Plan and Optimize Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: State-of-the-Art Review Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI as Compared with Coronary Bypass Surgery Angiographic quantitative flow ratio-guided coronary intervention (FAVOR III China): a multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial 5-Year Outcomes of PCI Guided by Measurement of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>|

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