100.72 FFR-Guided Revascularization Versus Non-FFR-Guided Partial or Complete Revascularization in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
JACC Cardiovasc Interv, Vol: 17, Issue: 4, Page: 0
2024
- 2Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage2
- Abstract Views2
Conference Paper Description
Background: Following revascularization of the infarct related artery (IRA) in acute myocardial infarction (MI), the utility of Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of angiographically severe non-IRAs is controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of all clinical trials involving this clinical question. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including all available trials that looked at FFR-guided complete revascularization versus IRA-only revascularization or complete revascularization without FFR use. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiovascular death, MI, or repeat revascularization. Secondary outcomes were death of all causes, major bleed, stent thrombosis, and stroke risk. Results: Six RCTs were included comprising a total of 2597 patients treated with IRA revascularization or complete revascularization without FFR use vs 2314 patients treated with FFR-guided complete revascularization. Compared with non-FFR use, FFR-guided PCI was significantly favored in terms of MACE (relative risk [RR] 1.65; 95% CI 1.04 - 2.63 p=0.04) and repeat revascularization (relative risk [RR] 1.92; 95% CI 1.18 - 3.11 p=0.02). There was, however, no difference in cardiovascular death (relative risk [RR] 1.67; 95% CI 0.98 - 2.85 p=0.06), MI (relative risk [RR] 1.43; 95% CI 0.78 - 2.61 p=0.19), death from any cause (relative risk [RR] 1.33; 95% CI 0.87 - 2.02 p=0.14), major bleed (relative risk [RR] 1.35; 95% CI 0.21- 8.49 p=0.56), stent thrombosis (relative risk [RR] 1.11; 95% CI 0.52 - 2.38 p=0.72), or stroke (relative risk [RR] 0.62 95% CI 0.26 - 1.44 p=0.19). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis shows that FFR-guided complete revascularization of non-IRAs at the time of MI has a significant benefit in lowering the risk of MACE and repeat revascularization. [Formula presented]
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know