Why the study?
The study was conducted to evaluate the effect of fractional flow reserve on clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting.
Does an FFR-guided strategy reduce MACE or the composite of death and MI in patients undergoing CABG compared to an angiography-guided strategy?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,027)
Does an FFR-guided strategy reduce MACE or the composite of death and MI in patients undergoing CABG compared to an angiography-guided strategy?
Effect estimate: HR 0.62 (95% CI 0.41-0.94)
FFR-guided CABG may significantly reduce the composite risk of death or MI compared to angiography-guided CABG, although it does not significantly reduce overall MACE.
Background: This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of fractional flow reserve (FFR) on clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: Five online databases were searched for studies that (1) enrolled patients who underwent isolated CABG or CABG with aortic valve replacement and (2) demonstrated the effect of an FFR-guided strategy on major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after surgery based on a randomized controlled trial or adjusted analysis. MACE included cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (MI), and repeated revascularization. The primary outcomes were all MACE outcomes and a composite of all-cause death and MI, and the secondary outcomes were the individual MACE outcomes. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and the Egger test. Results: Six articles (3 randomized and 3 non-randomized studies: n=1,027) were selected. MACE data were extracted from 4 studies. The pooled analyses showed that the risk of MACE was not significantly different between patients who underwent FFR-guided CABG and those who underwent angiography-guided CABG (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.57-1.12). However, the risk of the composite of death or MI was significantly lower in patients undergoing FFR-guided CABG (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.94). The individual MACE outcomes were not significantly different between FFR-guided and angiography-guided CABG. Conclusion: FFR-guided CABG might be beneficial in terms of the composite outcome of death or MI compared with angiography-guided CABG although data are limited.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kang et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary artery disease requiring coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n=1,027). Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided CABG vs. Angiography-guided CABG was evaluated on Composite of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI) (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: