Key result
FFR-guided PCI did not reduce all-cause mortality compared with non-FFR-guided PCI, CABG, or medical treatment in patients with angina pectoris.
Why the study?
Evaluation of hemodynamic parameters like FFR is recommended before PCI for angina pectoris, but the advantage of FFR-guided PCI had not been fully established.
Does FFR-guided PCI reduce all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction in patients with angina pectoris compared to non-FFR-guided PCI, CABG, and medical treatment?
Meta-Analysis (n=18,093)
Does FFR-guided PCI reduce all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction in patients with angina pectoris compared to non-FFR-guided PCI, CABG, and medical treatment?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In patients with angina pectoris, FFR-guided PCI does not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared to CABG, non-FFR-guided PCI, or medical therapy, but it may reduce the composite of mortality and MI compared to non-FFR-guided PCI and medical therapy.
Evaluation of hemodynamic parameters, such as fractional flow reserve (FFR), is recommended before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with angina pectoris (AP). However, the advantage of FFR-guided PCI has not been fully established. This study was performed to confirm whether FFR-guided PCI improves the prognosis compared with other treatments. Multiple databases were searched for studies published from 2000 to 2018, and a network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare outcomes of FFR-guided PCI, non-FFR-guided PCI, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and medical treatment (MT) for AP based on estimated odds ratios (ORs). The study included 18,093 patients from 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). No evidence of inconsistency was observed among the studies. The NMA showed that the all-cause mortality of FFR-guided PCI was not significantly different from that of the other treatment groups (CABG: OR, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.7; non-FFR-guided PCI: OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.53-1.4; and MT: OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.52-1.3). The NMA for the composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction, which included 15,454 patients from 12 RCTs, showed that FFR-guided PCI significantly reduced the composite outcome compared with non-FFR-guided PCI and MT (non-FFR-guided PCI: OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95 and MT: OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95). Although FFR-guided PCI for AP did not show significant prognostic improvement compared with non-FFR-guided PCI, CABG, and MT, FFR-guided PCI may significantly reduce the composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction compared with non-FFR-guided PCI and MT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shinohara et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis in Angina Pectoris (n=18,093). FFR-guided PCI vs. Non-FFR-guided PCI, CABG, and medical treatment was evaluated on All-cause mortality (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53-1.4). FFR-guided PCI did not reduce all-cause mortality compared with non-FFR-guided PCI, CABG, or medical treatment in patients with angina pectoris.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: