CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

SGLT-2 Inhibitors and Cardiovascular Risk: An Analysis of CVD-REAL Blood Pressure Assessment in Adults in Clinical Practice and Clinic-Based Research: JACC Scientific Expert Panel 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines Tissue characterisation of atherosclerotic plaque in the left main: an in vivo intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency data analysis Poor R-wave progression as a predictor of sudden cardiac death in general population and subjects with coronary artery disease Evaluation and Management of Right-Sided Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Clopidogrel Pharmacogenetics: State-of-the-Art Review and the TAILOR-PCI Study A pragmatic approach to the use of inotropes for the management of acute and advanced heart failure: An expert panel consensus The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program Nationwide Perspectives and Recommendations: A JACC: Heart Failure Position Paper A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cardiac contractility modulation in patients with systolic heart failure: rationale, design, and baseline patient characteristics.

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 .).