CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Outcomes of off- and on-hours admission in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A retrospective observational cohort study Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI: a Contemporary Review Acute Myocardial Infarction after Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza Infection Aspirin-Free Prasugrel Monotherapy Following Coronary Artery Stenting in Patients With Stable CAD: The ASET Pilot Study Inflammation: A New Target For CAD Treatment and Prevention Relation between door-to-balloon times and mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention over time: a retrospective study Recurrent Cardiovascular Events in Survivors of Myocardial Infarction with St-Segment Elevation (From the AMI-QUEBEC Study) Effect of Shorter Door-to-Balloon Times Over 20 Years on Outcomes of Patients With Anterior ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Prognostic significance of QRS fragmentation and correlation with infarct size in patients with anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the INFUSE-AMI trial Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial
|<<... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ...>>|

Clinical Trial2012 Sep 13;367(11):991-1001.

JOURNAL：N Engl J Med. Article Link

Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease

De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, FAME 2 Trial Investigators et al. Keywords: fractional flow reserve; PCI; medical therapy

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - The preferred initial treatment for patients with stable coronary artery disease is the best available medical therapy. We hypothesized that in patients with functionally significant stenoses, as determined by measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus the best available medical therapy would be superior to the best available medical therapy alone.


METHODS - In patients with stable coronary artery disease for whom PCI was being considered, we assessed all stenoses by measuring FFR. Patients in whom at least one stenosis was functionally significant (FFR, ≤0.80) were randomly assigned to FFR-guided PCI plus the best available medical therapy (PCI group) or the best available medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group). Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 were entered into a registry and received the best available medical therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization.

RESULTS - Recruitment was halted prematurely after enrollment of 1220 patients (888 who underwent randomization and 332 enrolled in the registry) because of a significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients who had a primary end-point event: 4.3% in the PCI group and 12.7% in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio with PCI, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.53; P<0.001). The difference was driven by a lower rate of urgent revascularization in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (1.6% vs. 11.1%; hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30; P<0.001); in particular, in the PCI group, fewer urgent revascularizations were triggered by a myocardial infarction or evidence of ischemia on electrocardiography (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.43; P<0.001). Among patients in the registry, 3.0% had a primary end-point event.

CONCLUSIONS - In patients with stable coronary artery disease and functionally significant stenoses, FFR-guided PCI plus the best available medical therapy, as compared with the best available medical therapy alone, decreased the need for urgent revascularization. In patients without ischemia, the outcome appeared to be favorable with the best available medical therapy alone. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01132495.).
>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