CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Ambulatory Electrocardiogram Monitoring in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Relationship Between Hospital Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes Decline in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction During Follow-Up in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Coronary Protection to Prevent Coronary Obstruction During TAVR: A Multicenter International Registry Ascending Aortic Length and Risk of Aortic Adverse Events: The Neglected Dimension Higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) increases the risk of suboptimal platelet inhibition and major cardiovascular ischemic events among ACS patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor Temporal Trends, Characteristics, and Outcomes of Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Assessment of Vascular Dysfunction in Patients Without Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: Why, How, and When Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention
|<<... 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 ...>>|

Original Research2017 May 11;376(19):1824-1834.

JOURNAL：N Engl J Med. Article Link

Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI

Davies JE, Sen S, Dehbi HM et al. Keywords: iFR; FFR; stable angina; ACS; coronary-artery stenosis; non inferiority; MACE

ABSTRACT



BACKGROUND - Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR.


METHODS - We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk.

RESULTS - At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P=0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS - Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE-FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02053038 .).


>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top