+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

A comparison of the outcome of therapy between fractional flow reserve guided- versus coronary angiography guided-strategy in acute coronary syndrome patients with moderate coronary lesions



A comparison of the outcome of therapy between fractional flow reserve guided- versus coronary angiography guided-strategy in acute coronary syndrome patients with moderate coronary lesions



Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi 55(7): 520-524



To compare the outcomes between coronary angiography (CAG ) guided- and fractional flow reserve (FFR) guided-strategy in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with moderate lesions. Totally, 249 ACS subjects with moderate lesions examined by CAG in Beijing Anzhen Hospital from July 1, 2014 to July 30, 2015 were included in the present analysis. Among them, 98 patients were further examined by FFR and 151 were not. All the patients were treated with medication either guided by CAG or by FFR. Subjects were followed up for an average of 10 months. The end points included death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and hospitalization costs. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as death, nonfatal MI, and TVR. At the end of follow-up, 29 patients had MACE with 6 cases (6.5%) in the FFR-guided group, and 23 cases (16.2%) in the CAG-guided group (P=0.036). Patients treated with FFR-guided strategy had significantly lower rate of TVR than those treated with CAG-guided strategy (5.4% vs 14.8%, P=0.045). No statistical difference was observed in nonfatal MI (2.2% vs 3.5%, P=0.242) between the two groups, and no cardiac death occurred in the two groups. However, the rate of patients treated with stains (P=0.033) and the hospitalization costs (P=0.001) were significantly increased in the FFR-guided group. FFR-guided strategy for patients with ACS results in lower TVR and MACE, but higher cost when compared with CAG-guided strategy.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 057057602

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27373286


Related references

Comparison of angiography-guided and fractional flow reserve-guided management strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention for intermediate coronary lesions. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. Yi Xue Ban 46(6): 844-847, 2014

Fractional flow reserve for coronary bifurcation lesions: can fractional flow reserve-guided side branch intervention strategy improve clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided strategy?. Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 8(4): 547-549, 2015

Rationale and design of the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) 3 Trial: a comparison of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. American Heart Journal 170(4): 619-626.E2, 2015

Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Three-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 2 Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation). Circulation 137(5): 480-487, 2018

Comparing treatment outcomes of fractional flow reserve-guided and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical and Investigative Medicine. Medecine Clinique et Experimentale 39(1): E25-E36, 2016

Outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes and moderate coronary lesions undergoing deferral of revascularization based on fractional flow reserve assessment. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 68(4): 544-548, 2006

Fractional flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 128(13): 1405-1411, 2013

Fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention vs. medical therapy for patients with stable coronary lesions: meta-analysis of individual patient data. European Heart Journal 40(2): 180-186, 2019

Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve- versus angio-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with intermediate stenosis of coronary artery bypass grafts. American Heart Journal 166(1): 110-118, 2013

Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate coronary artery disease: fractional flow reserve-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided. Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 3(8): 812-817, 2010

Six-Year Follow-Up of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery. Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions 11(6): E006368, 2018

Impact of Routine Fractional Flow Reserve on Management Decision and 1-Year Clinical Outcome of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: PRIME-FFR (Insights From the POST-IT [Portuguese Study on the Evaluation of FFR-Guided Treatment of Coronary Disease] and R3F [French FFR Registry] Integrated Multicenter Registries - Implementation of FFR [Fractional Flow Reserve] in Routine Practice). Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions 10(6):, 2017

The impact of age on fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) trial substudy. International Journal of Cardiology 177(1): 66-70, 2014

The impact of sex differences on fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) substudy. Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 5(10): 1037-1042, 2012

Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Strategy in Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia 111(4): 542-550, 2018