CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Low Endothelial Shear Stress Predicts Evolution to High-Risk Coronary Plaque Phenotype in the Future: A Serial Optical Coherence Tomography and Computational Fluid Dynamics Study Left Main Revascularization in 2017: Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Patients Undergoing Multivessel PCI Prognostic Value of Computed Tomography-Derived Extracellular Volume in TAVR Patients With Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease Sex-Based Outcomes in Patients With a High Bleeding Risk After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and 1-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Secondary Analysis of the LEADERS FREE Randomized Clinical Trial A randomized clinical study comparing double kissing crush with provisional stenting for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the DKCRUSH-II (Double Kissing Crush versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions) trial Percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery disease: the 13th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club Safety and efficacy of the bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in high-risk patients undergoing PCI: TWILIGHT-SYNERGY Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
|<<... 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 ...>>|

Clinical Trial2010 Jun 22;55(25):2816-21.

JOURNAL：J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation

Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B et al. Keywords: coronary angiographydrug-eluting stentfractional flow reservemultivessel coronary artery diseasepercutaneous coronary intervention

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES - The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between angiographic and functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation) study.


BACKGROUND - It can be difficult to determine on the coronary angiogram which lesions cause ischemia. Revascularization of coronary stenoses that induce ischemia improves a patient's functional status and outcome. For stenoses that do not induce ischemia, however, the benefit of revascularization is less clear.

METHODS - In the FAME study, routine measurement of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) was compared with angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The use of the FFR in addition to angiography significantly reduced the rate of all major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. Of the 1,414 lesions (509 patients) in the FFR-guided arm of the FAME study, 1,329 were successfully assessed by the FFR and are included in this analysis.

RESULTS - Before FFR measurement, these lesions were categorized into 50% to 70% (47% of all lesions), 71% to 90% (39% of all lesions), and 91% to 99% (15% of all lesions) diameter stenosis by visual assessment. In the category 50% to 70% stenosis, 35% were functionally significant (FFR <or=0.80) and 65% were not (FFR >0.80). In the category 71% to 90% stenosis, 80% were functionally significant and 20% were not. In the category of subtotal stenoses, 96% were functionally significant. Of all 509 patients with angiographically defined multivessel disease, only 235 (46%) had functional multivessel disease (>or=2 coronary arteries with an FFR <or=0.80).

CONCLUSIONS - Angiography is inaccurate in assessing the functional significance of a coronary stenosis when compared with the FFR, not only in the 50% to 70% category but also in the 70% to 90% angiographic severity category.

Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
>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