MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.01.002

Медицинская библиотека · JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2022

FFR- Versus Angiography-Guided Revascularization for Nonculprit Stenosis in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Elbadawi Ayman, Dang Alexander T, Hamed Mohamed, Eid Mennaallah, Prakash Hiriyur Prakash Meghana, Saleh Mohammed, Gad Mohamed, Mamas Mamas A, Rahman Faisal, Elgendy Islam Y

СтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided versus angiography-guided approaches for nonculprit stenosis among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease.

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy to guide revascularization of nonculprit stenosis among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease remains uncertain.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials evaluating the outcomes of culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization (CR), or FFR-guided CR. A pairwise meta-analysis comparing CR versus culprit-only revascularization and a network meta-analysis comparing the different revascularization techniques were conducted. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

RESULTS

The analysis included 11 trials with 8,195 patients. CR (ie, angiography-guided or FFR-guided CR) was associated with a lower incidence of MACE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.59), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.98), recurrent myocardial infarction (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.95), and repeat ischemia-driven revascularization (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.35). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the incidence of MACE was lower with both angiography-guided CR (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.58) and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.78) compared with a culprit-only approach, while there was no difference in risk for MACE between angiography-guided and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, CR, with angiographic or FFR guidance for nonculprit stenosis, was associated with lower incidence of adverse events compared with culprit-only revascularization. FFR-guided CR was not superior to angiography-guided CR in reducing the incidence of adverse events. Future studies investigating other tools to risk-stratify nonculprit stenoses are encouraged.

Для цитирования: Elbadawi Ayman, Dang Alexander T, Hamed Mohamed, Eid Mennaallah, Prakash Hiriyur Prakash Meghana, Saleh Mohammed, Gad Mohamed, Mamas Mamas A, Rahman Faisal, Elgendy Islam Y. FFR- Versus Angiography-Guided Revascularization for Nonculprit Stenosis in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.. JACC. Cardiovascular interventions. 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.01.002.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.