CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Consensus from the 5th European Bifurcation Club meeting From ACE Inhibitors/ARBs to ARNIs in Coronary Artery Disease and Heart Failure (Part 2/5) Cost-Effectiveness of Different Durations of Dual-Antiplatelet Use After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Effect of Luseogliflozin on Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Prevalence and clinical implications of valvular calcification on coronary computed tomography angiography Efficacy and Safety of Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction According to Age: Insights From DAPA-HF Timing of intervention in asymptomatic patients with valvular heart disease Myofibroblast Phenotype and Reversibility of Fibrosis in Patients With End-Stage Heart Failure DAPT, Our Genome and Clopidogrel Optical Frequency Domain Imaging Versus Intravascular Ultrasound in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (OPINION Trial) Results From the OPINION Imaging Study

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.