CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

A randomised trial comparing two stent sizing strategies in coronary bifurcation treatment with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds - The Absorb Bifurcation Coronary (ABC) trial 中国肺高血压诊断和治疗指南2018 Comparison of the Preventive Efficacy of Rosuvastatin Versus Atorvastatin in Post-Contrast Acute Kidney Injury in Patients With ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Contemporary use of drug-coated balloons in coronary artery disease: Where are we now? Phosphoproteomic Analysis of Neonatal Regenerative Myocardium Revealed Important Roles of CHK1 via Activating mTORC1/P70S6K Pathway Relations between implementation of new treatments and improved outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the last 20 years: experiences from SWEDEHEART registry 1995 to 2014 Triage Considerations for Patients Referred for Structural Heart Disease Intervention During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: An ACC /SCAI Consensus Statement Management of Myocardial Revascularization Failure: An Expert Consensus Document of the EAPCI Prevalence of Coronary Vasospasm Using Coronary Reactivity Testing in Patients With Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes: From Pathogenesis to the Fine Line Between Bleeding and Ischemic Risk

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 .).