CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Randomized Comparison Between Radial and Femoral Large-Bore Access for Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association Long-Term Prognostic Implications of Previous Silent Myocardial Infarction in Patients Presenting With Acute Myocardial Infarction Guiding Principles for Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Efficacy and Safety of Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-up A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents Treatment of higher-risk patients with an indication for revascularization: evolution within the field of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention Derivation and Validation of a Chronic Total Coronary Occlusion Intervention Procedural Success Score From the 20,000-Patient EuroCTO Registry:The EuroCTO (CASTLE) Score

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)