TY - JOUR
T1 - Fractional flow reserve versus angiography alone in guiding myocardial revascularisation
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials
AU - Elbadawi, Ayman
AU - Sedhom, Ramy
AU - Dang, Alexander T.
AU - Gad, Mohamed M.
AU - Rahman, Faisal
AU - Brilakis, Emmanouil S.
AU - Elgendy, Islam Y.
AU - Jneid, Hani
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2022/10/13
Y1 - 2022/10/13
N2 - BACKGROUND: Randomised trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation among patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) have yielded mixed results. AIMS: To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation among patients with obstructive CAD. METHODS: An electronic search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases without language restrictions was performed through November 2021 for randomised controlled trials that evaluated the outcomes of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The final analysis included seven trials with 5094 patients. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 38 months. Compared with angiography guidance, FFR guidance was associated with fewer number of stents during revascularisation (standardised mean difference=-0.80; 95% CI -1.33 to -0.27), but no difference in total hospital cost. There was no difference between FFR-guided and angiography-guided revascularisation in long-term MACE (13.6% vs 13.9%; risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11). Meta-regression analyses did not reveal any evidence of effect modification for MACE with acute coronary syndrome (p=0.36), proportion of three-vessel disease (p=0.88) or left main disease (p=0.50). There were no differences between FFR-guided and angiography-guided revascularisation in the outcomes all-cause mortality (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.68), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.26), repeat revascularisation (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21), recurrent myocardial infarction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14) or stent thrombosis (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.21). CONCLUSION: Among patients with obstructive CAD, FFR-guided revascularisation did not reduce the risk of long-term adverse cardiac events or the individual outcomes. However, FFR-guided revascularisation was associated with fewer number of stents. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021291596.
AB - BACKGROUND: Randomised trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation among patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) have yielded mixed results. AIMS: To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation among patients with obstructive CAD. METHODS: An electronic search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases without language restrictions was performed through November 2021 for randomised controlled trials that evaluated the outcomes of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The final analysis included seven trials with 5094 patients. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 38 months. Compared with angiography guidance, FFR guidance was associated with fewer number of stents during revascularisation (standardised mean difference=-0.80; 95% CI -1.33 to -0.27), but no difference in total hospital cost. There was no difference between FFR-guided and angiography-guided revascularisation in long-term MACE (13.6% vs 13.9%; risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11). Meta-regression analyses did not reveal any evidence of effect modification for MACE with acute coronary syndrome (p=0.36), proportion of three-vessel disease (p=0.88) or left main disease (p=0.50). There were no differences between FFR-guided and angiography-guided revascularisation in the outcomes all-cause mortality (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.68), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.26), repeat revascularisation (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21), recurrent myocardial infarction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14) or stent thrombosis (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.21). CONCLUSION: Among patients with obstructive CAD, FFR-guided revascularisation did not reduce the risk of long-term adverse cardiac events or the individual outcomes. However, FFR-guided revascularisation was associated with fewer number of stents. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021291596.
KW - coronary artery disease
KW - percutaneous coronary intervention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85140144845&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85140144845&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320768
DO - 10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320768
M3 - Article
C2 - 35568392
AN - SCOPUS:85140144845
SN - 1355-6037
VL - 108
SP - 1699
EP - 1706
JO - Heart (British Cardiac Society)
JF - Heart (British Cardiac Society)
IS - 21
ER -