CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

De-escalation of antianginal medications after successful chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: Frequency and relationship with health status Stent fracture is associated with a higher mortality in patients with type-2 diabetes treated by implantation of a second-generation drug-eluting stent New technologies for intensive prevention programs after myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the NET-IPP trial Defining Staged Procedures for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Trials A Guidance Document Cardiac Sympathetic Denervation for Refractory Ventricular Arrhythmias Prospective Elimination of Distal Coronary Sinus to Left Atrial Connection for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation (PRECAF) Randomized Controlled Trial Left Ventricular Assist Device as a Bridge to Recovery for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure Oxidative Stress and Cardiovascular Risk: Obesity, Diabetes, Smoking, and Pollution: Part 3 of a 3-Part Series Impact of age and comorbidity on risk stratification in idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension Association of Parenteral Anticoagulation Therapy With Outcomes in Chinese Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

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)