International journal of cardiology · 2024
The role of gender in resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) guided coronary revascularization.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ghobrial Mina, Bawamia Bilal, Cartlidge Timothy, Purcell Ian, Bagnall Alan, Farag Mohamed, Alkhalil Mohammad
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Gender-based differences in clinical outcomes of patients undergoing fractional flow reserved (FFR) guided coronary revascularization is well documented. This study aimed to compare resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) values between men and women and whether this translated into difference in clinical outcomes in patients who underwent RFR-guided coronary revascularization.
METHODS: This was a retrospective single-centre study of consecutive patients who underwent RFR-guided revascularization for coronary lesions with intermediate degree of stenosis. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization, and unstable angina requiring hospital admission at one year.
RESULTS: In 373 consecutive patients (510 lesions, 26% women) there was no statistically significant difference in RFR value between men and women (0.90 ± 10 versus 0.90 ± 11, P = 0.95). There was no statistically significant difference between men and women in the primary endpoint, even after adjustment to the imbalance between the two groups [3.7% vs. 3.0%; HR 1.43, 95% CI (0.46 to 4.43), P = 0.54]; or its individual components of death (1.1% vs 0.8%, P = 0.76), MI (1.9% vs 0.8%, P = 0.38) or unplanned revascularization, including unstable angina admissions (2.6% vs 2.3%, P = 0.82). The comparable clinical outcomes were consistent across all different subgroups, including clinical presentation, diabetes status, left ventricle systolic function, kidney function, and the interrogated coronary artery.
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests no significant gender-based difference in the value of RFR or 1-year clinical outcomes in patients undergoing resting physiology guided coronary revascularization.
METHODS: This was a retrospective single-centre study of consecutive patients who underwent RFR-guided revascularization for coronary lesions with intermediate degree of stenosis. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization, and unstable angina requiring hospital admission at one year.
RESULTS: In 373 consecutive patients (510 lesions, 26% women) there was no statistically significant difference in RFR value between men and women (0.90 ± 10 versus 0.90 ± 11, P = 0.95). There was no statistically significant difference between men and women in the primary endpoint, even after adjustment to the imbalance between the two groups [3.7% vs. 3.0%; HR 1.43, 95% CI (0.46 to 4.43), P = 0.54]; or its individual components of death (1.1% vs 0.8%, P = 0.76), MI (1.9% vs 0.8%, P = 0.38) or unplanned revascularization, including unstable angina admissions (2.6% vs 2.3%, P = 0.82). The comparable clinical outcomes were consistent across all different subgroups, including clinical presentation, diabetes status, left ventricle systolic function, kidney function, and the interrogated coronary artery.
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests no significant gender-based difference in the value of RFR or 1-year clinical outcomes in patients undergoing resting physiology guided coronary revascularization.