Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2003
Use of fractional flow reserve versus stress perfusion scintigraphy after unstable angina. Effect on duration of hospitalization, cost, procedural characteristics, and clinical outcome.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Leesar Massoud A, Abdul-Baki Talal, Akkus Nuri I, Sharma Anil, Kannan Tarif, Bolli Roberto
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The present study sought to determine the value of fractional flow reserve (FFR) compared with stress perfusion scintigraphy (SPS) in patients with recent unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI).
BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve, an invasive index of stenosis severity, is a reliable surrogate for SPS in patients with normal left ventricular function. An FFR > or = 0.75 can distinguish patients after myocardial infarction (MI) with a positive SPS from those with a negative SPS. However, the use of FFR has not been investigated after UA/NSTEMI.
METHODS: Seventy patients who had recent UA/NSTEMI and an intermediate single-vessel stenosis were randomized to either SPS (n = 35) or FFR (n = 35). Patients in the SPS group were discharged if the SPS revealed no ischemia, whereas those in the FFR group were discharged if the FFR was > or = 0.75. Patients with a positive SPS and those with an FFR <0.75 underwent percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. The use of FFR markedly reduced the duration and cost of hospitalization compared with SPS (11 +/- 2 h vs. 49 +/- 5 h [-77%], p < 0.001; and 1,329 US dollars +/- 44 US dollars vs. 2,113 US dollars +/- 120 US dollars, respectively, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in procedure time, radiation exposure time, or event rates during follow-up, including death, MI, or revascularization.
CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that: 1) the use of FFR in patients with recent UA/NSTEMI markedly reduces the duration and cost of hospitalization compared with SPS; and 2) these benefits are not associated with an increase in procedure time, radiation exposure time, or clinical event rates.
BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve, an invasive index of stenosis severity, is a reliable surrogate for SPS in patients with normal left ventricular function. An FFR > or = 0.75 can distinguish patients after myocardial infarction (MI) with a positive SPS from those with a negative SPS. However, the use of FFR has not been investigated after UA/NSTEMI.
METHODS: Seventy patients who had recent UA/NSTEMI and an intermediate single-vessel stenosis were randomized to either SPS (n = 35) or FFR (n = 35). Patients in the SPS group were discharged if the SPS revealed no ischemia, whereas those in the FFR group were discharged if the FFR was > or = 0.75. Patients with a positive SPS and those with an FFR <0.75 underwent percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. The use of FFR markedly reduced the duration and cost of hospitalization compared with SPS (11 +/- 2 h vs. 49 +/- 5 h [-77%], p < 0.001; and 1,329 US dollars +/- 44 US dollars vs. 2,113 US dollars +/- 120 US dollars, respectively, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in procedure time, radiation exposure time, or event rates during follow-up, including death, MI, or revascularization.
CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that: 1) the use of FFR in patients with recent UA/NSTEMI markedly reduces the duration and cost of hospitalization compared with SPS; and 2) these benefits are not associated with an increase in procedure time, radiation exposure time, or clinical event rates.