+ 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

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis



Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis



Heart 101(6): 455-462



The purpose of this study was to investigate whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) should be performed for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) to guide the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy. PCI is the most effective method to improve the outcomes of CAD. However, the proper usage of PCI has not been achieved in clinical practice. A meta-analysis was performed on angiography-guided PCI and FFR-guided PCI strategies. Prospective and retrospective studies were included when research subjects were patients with CAD undergoing PCI. The primary endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Secondary endpoints included death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularisation and death or MI. Four prospective and three retrospective studies involving 49 517 patients were included. Absolute risks of MACE/MACCE, death, MI, revascularisation and death or MI for angiography-guided PCI and FFR-guided PCI were 34.8% vs 22.5%, 15.3% vs 7.6%, 8.1% vs 4.2%, 20.4% vs 14.8%, and 21.9% vs 11.8%, respectively. The meta-analysis demonstrated that FFR-guided PCI was associated with lower MACE/MACCE (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.23), death (OR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.96), MI (OR: 2.05, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.60), repeat revascularisation (OR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.44), and death or MI (OR: 1.84, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.15) than angiography-guided PCI strategy. This meta-analysis supports current guidelines advising the FFR-guided PCI strategy for CAD. PCI should only be performed when haemodynamic significance is found.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 057897225

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25637372

DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2014-306578


Related references

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 56(3): 177-184, 2010

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. New England Journal of Medicine 360(3): 213-224, 2009

Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Yearbook of Cardiology 2010: 340-342, 2010

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

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

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

Tc-99m sestamibi single photon emission computed tomography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease: a comparison with quantitative coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 26(2): 203-213, 2010

One-year clinical outcome of angiography, fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio guided percutaneous coronary intervention: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 17(3): 1939-1951, 2019

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

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated systematic review. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 92(1): 18-27, 2018

Clinical value of post-percutaneous coronary intervention fractional flow reserve value: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Heart Journal 183: 1-9, 2017

Comparison of coronary flow reserve and fractional flow reserve in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus and having elective percutaneous coronary intervention and abciximab therapy (from the PREDICT Trial). American Journal of Cardiology 101(6): 796-800, 2008

Meta-analysis of deferral versus performance of coronary intervention based on coronary pressure-derived fractional flow reserve. American Journal of Cardiology 115(3): 385-391, 2015

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