CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Outcomes After Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting According to Lesion Site Results From the EXCEL Trial Nuclear Imaging of the Cardiac Sympathetic Nervous System: A Disease-Specific Interpretation in Heart Failure Stage B heart failure: management of asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction Effects of Dapagliflozin on Symptoms, Function and Quality of Life in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Results from the DAPA-HF Trial A Fully Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device — Final Report Diagnosis of Nonischemic Stage B Heart Failure in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Parameters for Prediction of Heart Failure Impact of the complexity of bifurcation lesions treated with drug-eluting stents: the DEFINITION study (Definitions and impact of complEx biFurcation lesIons on clinical outcomes after percutaNeous coronary IntervenTIOn using drug-eluting steNts) Can Biomarkers of Myocardial Injury Provide Complementary Information to Coronary Imaging? Rationale and design of the comParIson Of sacubitril/valsartaN versus Enalapril on Effect on nt-pRo-bnp in patients stabilized from an acute Heart Failure episode (PIONEER-HF) trial 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society

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.