+ 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

Comparison of angiography-guided and fractional flow reserve-guided management strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention for intermediate coronary lesions



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



To compare the consistency of angiography-guided and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided management strategy for intermediate coronary lesions. The patients whose coronary intermediate lesions were assessed by measuring FFR from November 2012 to August 2014. The stenosis percentage and value of FFR during the procedure were collected. All the image data were collected and four experienced interventional cardiologists were invited to assess the target lesions and make a management strategy independently. The consistency of angiography-guided and fractional flow reserve-guided management strategy were analyzed. In the study, 151 patients were included, of whom, 70.2% were male, the average age was (62.7±9.6) years, 169 vessels were assessed by measuring FFR, 1 being left main, 116 left anterior descending, 27 left circumflex branch, and 25 right coronary artery. There were some correlationship between the stenosis percentage judged by four interventional cardiologists and the stenosis percentage judged during the procedure (r=0.29-0.38, P<0.001), but the difference was significant. When 0.80 was used as FFR threshold value, the consistency rates of angiography-guided management strategy decision made by the four cardiologists with fractional flow reserve-guided management strategy were 72.78%, 71.60%, 75.15%, and 72.78%, respectively. Angiography-guided management strategy decision is unreliable, FFR is recommended for management strategy decision for intermediate coronary lesions.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 057466382

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25512269


Related references

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

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, 2016

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

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

Evaluating the impact of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate coronary artery lesions on the mode of treatment and their outcomes: An Iranian experience. Arya Atherosclerosis 11(2): 153-159, 2015

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

Long-term outcomes of fractional flow reserve-guided vs. angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practice. European Heart Journal 34(18): 1375-1383, 2013

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

Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for intermediate coronary artery disease guided by intravascular ultrasound or fractional flow reserve. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 34(5): 704-708, 2014

Fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for an intermediate stenosis complicated by a coronary-to-pulmonary artery fistula. Heart and Vessels 31(5): 816-818, 2016

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of non-invasive imaging guided strategy vs fractional flow reserve guided approach in patients with non-culprit lesion at primary percutaneous coronary intervention. European Heart Journal 34(Suppl 1): P2933-P2933, 2013

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

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