CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Unexpectedly Low Natriuretic Peptide Levels in Patients With Heart Failure Fractional flow reserve derived from CCTA may have a prognostic role in myocardial bridging Prdm16 Deficiency Leads to Age-Dependent Cardiac Hypertrophy, Adverse Remodeling, Mitochondrial Dysfunction, and Heart Failure How to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm: a consensus recommendation from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial The Utility of Contrast Medium Fractional Flow Reserve in Functional Assessment Of Coronary Disease in Daily Practice Impact of plaque components on no-reflow phenomenon after stent deployment in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a virtual histology-intravascular ultrasound analysis Impact of the Use of Intravascular Imaging on Patients Who Underwent Orbital Atherectomy Nitrosative stress drives heart failure with preserved ejection fraction Association of Left Ventricular Systolic Function With Incident Heart Failure in Late Life

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 .).