CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Single direct oral anticoagulant therapy in stable patients with atrial fibrillation beyond 1 year after coronary stent implantation Does pulsed field ablation regress over time? A quantitative temporal analysis of pulmonary vein isolation Current Status and Future Prospects of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Gut microbiota dysbiosis promotes age-related atrial fibrillation by lipopolysaccharide and glucose-induced activation of NLRP3-inflammasome Detection of Device-Related Thrombosis Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion A Comparison Between Cardiac Computed Tomography and Transesophageal Echocardiography​: A Comparison Between Cardiac Computed Tomography and Transesophageal Echocardiography Role of local coronary blood flow patterns and shear stress on the development of microvascular and epicardial endothelial dysfunction and coronary plaque Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion during Cardiac Surgery to Prevent Stroke Management and outcomes of patients with left atrial appendage thrombus prior to percutaneous closure Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure Rivaroxaban Is Associated With Higher Rates of Gastrointestinal Bleeding Than Other Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Nationwide Propensity Score–Weighted Study

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)