European heart journal · 2026
Fractional flow reserve-guided renal artery stenting in atherosclerotic renovascular hypertension: the FAIR randomized trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Li Yuxi, Zheng Jingang, Lu Chengzhi, Fan Fangfang, Liu Zhihao, Liu Shengcong, Yi Tieci, Zhang Long, Weng Haoyu, Wang Beining, Liu Xu, Zhou Hui, Ma Dengfeng, Jia Zhi, Xiang Li, Yang Renqiang, Shi Dongmei, Chen Hui, Xu Li, Liu Cun, Kario Kazuomi, Zhang Yan, Li Jianping
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal therapy for patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) remains unresolved. This study compared the efficacy of renal fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization and traditional angiography-guided revascularization.
METHODS: In total, 101 patients with ARAS and hypertension were randomly assigned to either the FFR-guided or angiography-guided group (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05732077). Stenting was performed in the angiography-guided group regardless of FFR, whereas stenting was only performed in the FFR-guided group for patients with FFR < 0.80. The primary endpoints were the percentage changes in ambulatory daytime mean systolic blood pressure (DMSBP) and composite index of antihypertensive medicines (CIAHM) after 3 months.
RESULTS: The percentage changes in DMSBP (4% [-2%, 11%] vs 4% [-3%, 10%]; P = .97) and CIAHM (0% [0%, 3%] vs 1% [0%, 4%]; P = .33) did not differ between groups. However, the rate of stenting was significantly lower in the FFR-guided group (46.0% vs 100.0%, P < .01). Moreover, compared with the findings in patients with FFR ≥ 0.80 who did not receive stenting, stenting was beneficial in patients with FFR < 0.80 (adjusted mean DMSBP reduction, 6.2 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.6-11.9] mmHg; mean CIAHM reduction, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.5-4.7]), but not in those with FFR ≥ 0.80 (1.4 [95% CI, -4.5-7.2] mmHg, and 0.7 [95% CI, -1.1-2.5], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: FFR-guided revascularization significantly reduced unnecessary stenting compared with angiography-guided revascularization. Both blood pressure and antihypertensive medication usage decreased significantly after stenting in patients with FFR < 0.80.
METHODS: In total, 101 patients with ARAS and hypertension were randomly assigned to either the FFR-guided or angiography-guided group (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05732077). Stenting was performed in the angiography-guided group regardless of FFR, whereas stenting was only performed in the FFR-guided group for patients with FFR < 0.80. The primary endpoints were the percentage changes in ambulatory daytime mean systolic blood pressure (DMSBP) and composite index of antihypertensive medicines (CIAHM) after 3 months.
RESULTS: The percentage changes in DMSBP (4% [-2%, 11%] vs 4% [-3%, 10%]; P = .97) and CIAHM (0% [0%, 3%] vs 1% [0%, 4%]; P = .33) did not differ between groups. However, the rate of stenting was significantly lower in the FFR-guided group (46.0% vs 100.0%, P < .01). Moreover, compared with the findings in patients with FFR ≥ 0.80 who did not receive stenting, stenting was beneficial in patients with FFR < 0.80 (adjusted mean DMSBP reduction, 6.2 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.6-11.9] mmHg; mean CIAHM reduction, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.5-4.7]), but not in those with FFR ≥ 0.80 (1.4 [95% CI, -4.5-7.2] mmHg, and 0.7 [95% CI, -1.1-2.5], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: FFR-guided revascularization significantly reduced unnecessary stenting compared with angiography-guided revascularization. Both blood pressure and antihypertensive medication usage decreased significantly after stenting in patients with FFR < 0.80.