CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes (IVUS-ACS): a two-stage, multicentre, randomised trial m6A Modification of Profilin-1 in Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells Drives Phenotype Switching and Neointimal Hyperplasia via Activation of the p-ANXA2/STAT3 Pathway Rationale and design of the Women's Ischemia Trial to Reduce Events in Nonobstructive CAD (WARRIOR) trial GRK2–YAP signaling is implicated in pulmonary arterial hypertension development Homocysteine metabolism as the target for predictive medical approach, disease prevention, prognosis, and treatments tailored to the person Establishment of a canine model of pulmonary arterial hypertension induced by dehydromonocrotaline and ultrasonographic study of right ventricular remodeling Intravascular Ultrasound vs Angiography-Guided Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty: The ULTIMATE Ⅲ Trial High-Risk Plaques on Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: Correlation With Optical Coherence Tomography Low‑Shear Stress Promotes Atherosclerosis via Inducing Endothelial Cell Pyroptosis Mediated by IKKε/STAT1/NLRP3 Pathway Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty of the Side Branch During Provisional Stenting: The Multicenter Randomized DCB-BIF 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)