Why the study?
Does fractional flow reserve-guided PCI improve outcomes compared to angiography-guided PCI in patients with coronary artery disease?
Does fractional flow reserve-guided PCI improve outcomes compared to angiography-guided PCI in patients with coronary artery disease?
This review summarizes evidence that FFR-guided PCI improves outcomes over angiography-guided PCI in multivessel disease and discusses its long-term validity and application in acute coronary syndromes.
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves symptoms and prognosis in ischemia-inducing, functionally significant, coronary lesions. Use of fractional flow reserve allows physicians to investigate the ischemia-inducing potential of a specific lesion and can be used to guide coronary revascularization, especially in multivessel coronary artery disease. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI has been extensively investigated. Results show that deferral of stenting in non-significant lesions is safe, whereas deferral of stenting in functionally significant lesions worsens outcome. FFR-guided PCI improves outcome in multivessel disease over angiography-guided PCI. Until recently, there was little known about the long-term outcome of FFR-guided revascularization and its validity in acute coronary syndromes. This review aims to address the new evidence regarding long-term appropriateness of FFR-guided PCI, the need for hyperemia to evaluate functional severity, and the use of FFR in acute coronary syndromes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zimmermann et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: