Literature DB >> 31782887

Outcomes of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Jad Omran1, Tariq Enezate2, Obai Abdullah2, Ashraf Al-Dadah3, Daniel Walters1, Mitul Patel1, Ryan Reeves1, Ehtisham Mahmud1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment has been validated as an effective tool to guide revascularization of stable coronary artery disease. The role of utilizing FFR in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is less established.
METHODS: The study population was extracted from the National Readmissions Data (NRD) 2014 using International Classification of Diseases, ninth edition, clinical modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for ACS, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), FFR, and periprocedural complications. Study endpoints included all-cause of in-hospital mortality, length of index hospital stay (LOS), acute kidney injury (AKI), bleeding, coronary dissection, total number of stents used, stroke, vascular complications (VCs), and the total charges of index hospitalization.
RESULTS: A total of 304,548 discharges that had the diagnosis of ACS and treated invasively within the same index hospitalization (average age 65.1 years; 64% male) were identified. Among these, 7,832 had FFR guided invasive treatment (2.6%) which was associated with significantly lower in-hospital all-cause mortality (1.1 vs. 3.1%, p < .01), shorter LOS (4.6 vs. 5.3 days, p < .01), less AKI (12.5 vs. 14.6%, p < .01), less bleeding (7.0 vs. 8.5%, p < .01), and lower total charges ($99,805 vs. $105,736). There was no significant difference between both groups in terms of stroke (2.2 vs. 2.3%, p = .41), coronary dissection (0.7 vs. 0.8%, p = .34), VC (1.3 vs. 1.0% p = .01) or the total number of stents used (55.5 vs. 54.5% p = .34).
CONCLUSION: In patients presenting with an ACS FFR- guided PCI, as compared to angiography guided PCI, was associated with lower rates of in-hospital mortality, shorter LOS, less AKI, bleeding and lower hospital charges. There was no significant difference in terms of the incidence of stroke, coronary dissection, VC or the total number of stents used.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FFR; NSTE; UA and PCI; acute coronary syndrome

Year:  2019        PMID: 31782887     DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28611

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1522-1946            Impact factor:   2.692


  3 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Virtual (Computed) Fractional Flow Reserve: Future Role in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Authors:  Hazel Arfah Haley; Mina Ghobrial; Paul D Morris; Rebecca Gosling; Gareth Williams; Mark T Mills; Tom Newman; Vignesh Rammohan; Giulia Pederzani; Patricia V Lawford; Rodney Hose; Julian P Gunn
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-10-22

3.  Comparison of Different Timing of Multivessel Intervention During Index-Hospitalization for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  En-Shao Liu; Cheng Chung Hung; Cheng-Hung Chiang; Chia-His Chang; Chin-Chang Cheng; Feng-You Kuo; Guang-Yuan Mar; Wei-Chun Huang
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-06-10
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.