Deferring coronary revascularization based on intracoronary physiology is associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events compared to performing revascularization.
Does deferred coronary revascularization based on intracoronary physiology improve cardiovascular outcomes compared to performed revascularization?
Deferring coronary revascularization based on intracoronary physiology is associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events compared to performing revascularization, highlighting the prognostic value of pressure wire assessment.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
Background: Although large studies and pooled analyses of individual patient data have demonstrated the safety of deferring coronary revascularization based on a nonischemic intracoronary pressure index result, conflicting findings have emerged in specific patient subsets and with varying follow‐up. Thus, we conducted an updated comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis to investigate the cardiovascular outcomes associated with deferred or performed coronary revascularization based on intracoronary physiology. Methods: Available studies were identified through a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Efficacy outcomes investigated were major adverse cardiovascular events, all‐cause death, cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. Results: A total of 24 studies enrolling 24 285 patients were included in the meta‐analysis. After a mean±SD follow‐up of 2.6±1.6 years, patients undergoing physiology‐guided deferred revascularization show consistently better outcomes than patients who underwent revascularization, including all‐cause death (incidence rate ratio IRR, 1.14 95% CI, 1.00–1.30; P =0.05), cardiovascular death (IRR, 1.53 95% CI, 1.17–2.00; P =0.002), and unplanned revascularization (IRR, 1.38 95% CI, 1.06–1.79; P =0.01). For major adverse cardiovascular events (IRR, 1.15 95% CI, 0.99–1.34; P =0.07) and myocardial infarction (IRR, 1.24 95% CI, 0.95–1.61; P =0.11), the associations did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Patients in whom revascularization was deferred based on intracoronary physiology show lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events compared with those who underwent revascularization. These findings suggest that pressure wire assessment has prognostic implications besides the indication for revascularization.
Lombardi et al. (Wed,) reported a other. Deferring coronary revascularization based on intracoronary physiology is associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events compared to performing revascularization.