CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

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 Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance as a complementary method to Transthoracic Echocardiography for Aortic Valve Area Estimation in patients with Aortic Stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis A new strategy for discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy: the RESET Trial (REal Safety and Efficacy of 3-month dual antiplatelet Therapy following Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation) The Year in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020: Valvular Heart Disease: Discussing the Year in Cardiovascular Medicine for 2020 in the field of valvular heart disease is Professor Helmut Baumgartner and Dr Javier Bermejo. Mark Nicholls reports Intravascular ultrasound guidance improves clinical outcomes during implantation of both first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis Cardiac and Kidney Benefits of Empagliflozin in Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Kidney Function: Insights From EMPEROR-Reduced The conductive function of biopolymer corrects myocardial scar conduction blockage and resynchronizes contraction to prevent heart failure Economic and Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Natriuretic Peptide–Guided Therapy for Heart Failure Dual-antiplatelet treatment beyond 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation (ARCTIC-Interruption): a randomised trial Dapagliflozin for treating chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Review ArticleJanuary 2017, Volume 183, Pages 1–9

JOURNAL:Am Heart J. Article Link

Clinical value of post-percutaneous coronary intervention fractional flow reserve value: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Rimac G, Fearon WF, Bertrand OF et al. Keywords: post-percutaneous coronary intervention; fractional flow reserve

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Fractional flow reserve (FFR) prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is useful to guide treatment. Whether post-PCI FFR assessment might have clinical impact is controversial. The aim of this study is to evaluate the range of post-PCI FFR values and analyze the relationship between post-PCI FFR and clinical outcomes.


METHODS - We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases with cross-referencing of articles reporting post-PCI FFR and correlating post-PCI FFR values and clinical outcomes. The outcomes of interest were the immediate post-PCI FFR values and the correlations between post-PCI FFR and the incidence of repeat intervention and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).


RESULTS - From 1995 to 2015, a total of 105 studies (n = 7470) were included, with 46 studies reporting post-PCI FFR and 59 studies evaluating relationship between post-PCI and clinical outcomes up to 30 months after PCI. Overall, post-PCI FFR values demonstrated a normal distribution with a mean value of 0.90 ± 0.04. There was a positive correlation between the percentage of stent use and post-PCI FFR (P < .0001). Meta-regression analysis indicated that higher post-PCI FFR values were associated with reduced rates of repeat intervention (P < .0001) and MACE (P = .0013). A post-PCI FFR ≥0.90 was associated with significantly lower risk of repeat PCI (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.34-0.56, P < .0001) and MACE (odds ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85, P = .0003).


CONCLUSIONS - FFR measurement after PCI was associated with prognostic significance. Further investigation is required to assess the role of post-PCI FFR and validate cutoff values in contemporary clinical practice.