Key result
FFR-guided PCI is linked to ~21% lower mortality and reduced MI versus non-physiology-guided revascularization.
Why the study?
Recent studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization for intermediate coronary lesions have reported conflicting results.
Does FFR-guided PCI reduce mortality and adverse cardiac events in patients with coronary artery disease compared to non-physiology-guided revascularization?
Population
78,897 patients across 26 studies
Comparison
FFR-guided PCI vs non-physiology-guided revascularization strategies
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis using random-effects model
Authors
Loading...
FFR-guided PCI lowers mortality and MI risk versus non-physiology-guided strategies; reinforces guidelines while leaving MACE benefit open for further RCTs.
Meta-Analysis (n=78,897)
Does FFR-guided PCI reduce mortality and adverse cardiac events in patients with coronary artery disease compared to non-physiology-guided revascularization?
Odds Ratio: 0.79 (95% CI 0.64–0.99)
FFR-guided PCI is associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction compared to non-physiology-guided revascularization strategies in patients with CAD.
Sanz‐Sánchez et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=78,897). FFR-guided PCI vs. Non-physiology-guided revascularization was evaluated on All-cause mortality (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.99). FFR-guided PCI compared to non-physiology-guided revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.99) and myocardial infarction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: