TY - JOUR
T1 - Fractional flow reserve use in coronary artery revascularization
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Sanz Sánchez, Jorge
AU - Farjat Pasos, Julio I
AU - Martinez Solé, Julia
AU - Hussain, Bilal
AU - Kumar, Sant
AU - Garg, Mohil
AU - Chiarito, Mauro
AU - Teira Calderón, Andrea
AU - Sorolla-Romero, Jose A
AU - Echavarria Pinto, Mauro
AU - Shin, Eun-Seok
AU - Diez Gil, José Luis
AU - Waksman, Ron
AU - van de Hoef, Tim P
AU - Garcia-Garcia, Hector M
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023
PY - 2023/8/18
Y1 - 2023/8/18
N2 - Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is recommended in revascularization guidelines for intermediate lesions. However, recent studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization have reported conflicting results. PubMed and Embase were searched for studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization strategies (angiography-guided, intracoronary imaging-guided, coronary artery bypass grafting). Data were pooled by meta-analysis using random-effects model. 26 studies enrolling 78,897 patients were included. FFR-guided PCI as compared to non-physiology-guided coronary revascularization had lower risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.79 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.99, I2 = 53%) and myocardial infarction (MI) (OR 0.74 95% CI 0.59-0.93, I2 = 44.7%). However, no differences between groups were found in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (OR 0.86 95% CI 0.72-1.03, I2 = 72.3%) and repeat revascularization (OR 1 95% CI 0.82-1.20, I2 = 43.2%). Among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), FFR-guided PCI as compared to non-physiology-guided revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and MI.
AB - Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is recommended in revascularization guidelines for intermediate lesions. However, recent studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization have reported conflicting results. PubMed and Embase were searched for studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization strategies (angiography-guided, intracoronary imaging-guided, coronary artery bypass grafting). Data were pooled by meta-analysis using random-effects model. 26 studies enrolling 78,897 patients were included. FFR-guided PCI as compared to non-physiology-guided coronary revascularization had lower risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.79 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.99, I2 = 53%) and myocardial infarction (MI) (OR 0.74 95% CI 0.59-0.93, I2 = 44.7%). However, no differences between groups were found in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (OR 0.86 95% CI 0.72-1.03, I2 = 72.3%) and repeat revascularization (OR 1 95% CI 0.82-1.20, I2 = 43.2%). Among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), FFR-guided PCI as compared to non-physiology-guided revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and MI.
KW - Cardiovascular medicine
KW - Pathology
KW - Surgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85164986539&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.isci.2023.107245
DO - 10.1016/j.isci.2023.107245
M3 - Article
C2 - 37520737
VL - 26
JO - iScience
JF - iScience
IS - 8
M1 - 107245
ER -