CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Comparison of inhospital mortality, length of hospitalization, costs, and vascular complications of percutaneous coronary interventions guided by ultrasound versus angiography 1-Year Outcomes After Edge-to-Edge Valve Repair for Symptomatic Tricuspid Regurgitation: Results From the TriValve Registry Lipid-Modifying Agents, From Statins to PCSK9 Inhibitors: JACC Focus Seminar Current treatment of significant left main coronary artery disease: A review 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines Extracellular Vesicles From Epicardial Fat Facilitate Atrial Fibrillation Prognostic value of coronary artery calcium screening in subjects with and without diabetes High-risk plaque detected on coronary CT angiography predicts acute coronary syndromes independent of significant stenosis in acute chest pain: results from the ROMICAT-II trial Long-term outcomes following mini-crush versus culotte stenting for the treatment of unprotected left main disease: insights from the Milan and New-Tokyo (MITO) registry The impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance during drug eluting stent implantation on angiographic outcomes

Clinical Trial2022 Mar, 79 (10) 965–974

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

5-Year Outcomes of PCI Guided by Measurement of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve

M Götberg, K Berntorp, R Rylance et al. Keywords: iFR-guided vs. FFR-guided revascularization; RCT

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a coronary physiology index used to assess the severity of coronary artery stenosis to guide revascularization. iFR has previously demonstrated noninferior short-term outcome compared to fractional flow reserve (FFR), but data on longer-term outcome have been lacking.


OBJECTIVES - The purpose of this study was to investigate the prespecified 5-year follow-up of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization of the iFR-SWEDEHEART trial comparing iFR vs FFR in patients with chronic and acute coronary syndromes.


METHODS - iFR-SWEDEHEART was a multicenter, controlled, open-label, registry-based randomized clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2,037 patients were randomized to undergo revascularization guided by iFR or FFR.


RESULTS - No patients were lost to follow-up. At 5 years, the rate of the primary composite endpoint was 21.5% in the iFR group and 19.9% in the FFR group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.90-1.33). The rates of all-cause death (9.4% vs 7.9%; HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.89-1.62), nonfatal myocardial infarction (5.7% vs 5.8%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.70-1.44), and unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs 11.3%; HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.79-1.32) were also not different between the 2 groups. The outcomes were consistent across prespecified subgroups.


CONCLUSIONS - In patients with chronic or acute coronary syndromes, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was associated with no difference in the 5-year composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization compared with an FFR-guided revascularization strategy. (Evaluation of iFR vs FFR in Stable Angina or Acute Coronary Syndrome [iFR SWEDEHEART]; NCT02166736)