Literature DB >> 25055138

Long-term survival in patients undergoing percutaneous interventions with or without intracoronary pressure wire guidance or intracoronary ultrasonographic imaging: a large cohort study.

Georg M Fröhlich1, Simon Redwood2, Roby Rakhit3, Philip A MacCarthy4, Pitt Lim5, Tom Crake1, Steven K White1, Charles J Knight6, Christoph Kustosz7, Guido Knapp7, Miles C Dalby8, Iqbal S Mali9, Andrew Archbold6, Andrew Wragg6, Adam D Timmis6, Pascal Meier1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Intracoronary pressure wire-derived measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) provide functional and anatomical information that can be used to guide coronary stent implantation. Although these devices are widely used and recommended by guidelines, limited data exist about their effect on clinical end points.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect on long-term survival of using FFR and IVUS during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). DESIGN AND
SETTING: Cohort study based on the pan-London (United Kingdom) PCI registry. In total, 64,232 patients are included in this registry covering the London, England, area. PARTICIPANTS: All patients (n = 41,688) who underwent elective or urgent PCI in National Health Service hospitals in London between January 1, 2004, and July 31, 2011, were included. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n = 11,370) were excluded.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent PCI guided by angiography (visual lesion assessment) alone, PCI guided by FFR, or IVUS-guided PCI. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was all-cause mortality at a median of 3.3 years.
RESULTS: Fractional flow reserve was used in 2767 patients (6.6%) and IVUS was used in 1831 patients (4.4%). No difference in mortality was observed between patients who underwent angiography-guided PCI compared with patients who underwent FFR-guided PCI (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.67-1.16; P = .37). Patients who underwent IVUS had a slightly higher adjusted mortality (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.78; P = .009) compared with patients who underwent angiography-guided PCI. However, this difference was no longer statistically significant in a propensity score-based analysis (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.85-2.09; P = .25). The mean (SD) number of implanted stents was lower in the FFR group (1.1 [1.2] stents) compared with the IVUS group (1.6 [1.3]) and the angiography-guided group (1.7 [1.1]) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this large observational study, FFR-guided PCI and IVUS-guided PCI were not associated with improved long-term survival compared with standard angiography-guided PCI. The use of FFR was associated with the implantation of fewer stents.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25055138     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1595

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  12 in total

1.  Impact and trends of intravascular imaging in diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in inpatients in the United States.

Authors:  Nathaniel R Smilowitz; Divyanshu Mohananey; Louai Razzouk; Giora Weisz; James N Slater
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 2.692

2.  Effect of PCI on Long-Term Survival in Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease.

Authors:  Steven P Sedlis; Pamela M Hartigan; Koon K Teo; David J Maron; John A Spertus; G B John Mancini; William Kostuk; Bernard R Chaitman; Daniel Berman; Jeffrey D Lorin; Marcin Dada; William S Weintraub; William E Boden
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 91.245

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

Authors:  Dongfeng Zhang; Shuzheng Lv; Xiantao Song; Fei Yuan; Feng Xu; Min Zhang; Shuai Yan; Xingmei Cao
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 4.  Fractional flow reserve-guided management in stable coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction: recent developments.

Authors:  Colin Berry; David Corcoran; Barry Hennigan; Stuart Watkins; Jamie Layland; Keith G Oldroyd
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 29.983

5.  The Impact of Fractional Flow Reserve on Revascularization.

Authors:  Islam Y Elgendy; Calvin Choi; Anthony A Bavry
Journal:  Cardiol Ther       Date:  2015-09-30

Review 6.  Fractional flow reserve: a clinical perspective.

Authors:  David Corcoran; Barry Hennigan; Colin Berry
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 7.  Comparison of intravascular ultrasound guided versus angiography guided drug eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yao-Jun Zhang; Si Pang; Xiao-Yun Chen; Christos V Bourantas; Dao-Rong Pan; Sheng-Jie Dong; Wen Wu; Xiao-Min Ren; Hao Zhu; Shun-Yi Shi; Javaid Iqbal; Bill D Gogas; Bo Xu; Shao-Liang Chen
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 2.298

Review 8.  Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease: Focus on Fractional Flow Reserve.

Authors:  Doyeon Hwang; Joo Myung Lee; Bon-Kwon Koo
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 3.500

9.  Fractional Flow Reserve Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Improves Clinical Outcome with Reduced Cost in Contemporary Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Po Hu; Meng-Yao Tang; Wen-Chao Song; Jun Jiang; Yong Sun; Xian-Bao Liu; Chang-Ling Li; Xin-Yang Hu; Jian-An Wang
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 2.628

10.  Analysis of the clinical value of fractional flow reserve for prognosis evaluation of patients of percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Qingxia Zhao; Zheng Ji; Xia Li; Yali Di; Haojun An; Bin Wei; Liming Yang; Wensheng Chen
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 2.447

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.