CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Healed coronary plaque rupture as a cause of rapid lesion progression: a case demonstrated with in vivo histopathology by directional coronary atherectomy Percutaneous coronary interventional strategies for treatment of in-stent restenosis: a network meta-analysis Trends in Usage and Clinical Outcomes of Coronary Atherectomy: A Report From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry A Notch3-Marked Subpopulation of Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells Is the Cell of Origin for Occlusive Pulmonary Vascular Lesions. Initial Worldwide Experience With the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Survival After Coronary Revascularization With Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons 3-Year Clinical Follow-Up of the RIBS IV Clinical Trial A Prospective Randomized Study of Drug-Eluting Balloons Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis in Coronary Arteries Previously Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents One-Year Outcomes of Orbital Atherectomy of Long, Diffusely Calcified Coronary Artery Lesions State of the art: evolving concepts in the treatment of heavily calcified and undilatable coronary stenoses - from debulking to plaque modification, a 40-year-long journey Two-year outcomes after treatment of severely calcified coronary lesions with the orbital atherectomy system and the impact of stent types: Insight from the ORBIT II trial

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)