Literature DB >> 26643736

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Versus Routine Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Patients With Intermediate Coronary Stenosis: Five-Year Clinical Outcomes of DEFER-DES Trial.

Sang Hyun Park1, Ki-Hyun Jeon1, Joo Myung Lee1, Chang-Wook Nam1, Joon-Hyung Doh1, Bong-Ki Lee1, Seung-Woon Rha1, Ki-dong Yoo1, Kyung Tae Jung1, Young-Seok Cho1, Hae-Young Lee1, Tae-Jin Youn1, Woo-Young Chung1, Bon-Kwon Koo2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes between fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided and routine drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in patients with an intermediate coronary stenosis. METHODS AND
RESULTS: A total of 229 patients with an angiographically intermediate coronary stenosis were randomly assigned to FFR-guided or Routine-DES implantation group. For FFR-guided group (n=114), treatment strategy was determined according to the target vessel FFR (FFR<0.75: DES implantation [FFR-DES group]; FFR≥0.75: deferral of stenting [FFR-Defer group]). Routine-DES group underwent DES implantation without FFR measurement (n=115). The primary end point was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Of lesions assigned to FFR-guided strategy, only one quarter had functional significance (FFR<0.75). At 2-year follow-up, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 7.9±2.5% in the FFR-guided group and 8.8±2.7% in Routine-DES group (P=0.80). At 5-year follow-up, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 11.6±3.0% and 14.2±3.3% for the FFR-guided group and the Routine-DES group (P=0.55). There was no difference in major adverse cardiac events rates between the 2 groups ≤5-year follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-2.60).
CONCLUSIONS: In lesions with angiographically intermediate stenosis, FFR guidance provides a tailored approach, which is at least as good as an angiography-guided routine-DES implantation strategy and avoids unnecessary DES-stenting in a considerable part of the patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00592228.
© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  coronary artery disease; coronary stenosis; drug-eluting stents; myocardial fractional flow reserve; percutaneous coronary intervention

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26643736     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.002442

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1941-7640            Impact factor:   6.546


  12 in total

Review 1.  Consensus document for invasive coronary physiologic assessment in Asia-Pacific countries.

Authors:  Hak Seung Lee; Joo Myung Lee; Chang-Wook Nam; Eun-Seok Shin; Joon-Hyung Doh; Neng Dai; Martin K C Ng; Andy S C Yong; Damras Tresukosol; Ajit S Mullasari; Rony Mathew; Praveen Chandra; Kuang-Te Wang; Yundai Chen; Jiyan Chen; Kai-Hang Yiu; Nils P Johnson; Bon-Kwon Koo
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 2.737

2.  Fractional Flow Reserve: Does a Cut-off Value add Value?

Authors:  Shah R Mohdnazri; Thomas R Keeble; Andrew Sp Sharp
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2016-05

Review 3.  Comparing the adverse clinical outcomes associated with fraction flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Pravesh Kumar Bundhun; Chandra Mouli Yanamala; Feng Huang
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2016-12-03       Impact factor: 2.298

Review 4.  Should fraction flow reserve be considered an important decision-making tool to stratify patients with stable coronary artery disease for percutaneous coronary intervention?: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Pravesh Kumar Bundhun; Chakshu Gupta; Feng Huang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.889

5.  A real-world comparison of outcomes between fractional flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Christopher C Y Wong; Austin C C Ng; Cuneyt Ada; Vincent Chow; William F Fearon; Martin K C Ng; Leonard Kritharides; Andy S C Yong
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of PET-derived myocardial blood flow parameters: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sang-Geon Cho; Soo Jin Lee; Myung Hwan Na; Yun Young Choi; Henry Hee-Seung Bom
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 7.  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

8.  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

Review 9.  Functional Approach for Coronary Artery Disease: Filling the Gap Between Evidence and Practice.

Authors:  Joo Myung Lee; Joon Hyung Doh; Chang Wook Nam; Eun Seok Shin; Bon Kwon Koo
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 3.243

10.  Fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention vs. medical therapy for patients with stable coronary lesions: meta-analysis of individual patient data.

Authors:  Frederik M Zimmermann; Elmir Omerovic; Stephane Fournier; Henning Kelbæk; Nils P Johnson; Martina Rothenbühler; Panagiotis Xaplanteris; Mohamed Abdel-Wahab; Emanuele Barbato; Dan Eik Høfsten; Pim A L Tonino; Bianca M Boxma-de Klerk; William F Fearon; Lars Køber; Pieter C Smits; Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Peter Jüni; Thomas Engstrøm
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 29.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.