Fractional flow reserve versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated systematic review

Tariq Enezate, Jad Omran, Ashraf S. Al-Dadah, Martin Alpert, Christopher J. White, Mazen Abu-Fadel, Herbert Aronow, Mauricio G Cohen, Frank Aguirre, Mitul Patel, Ehtisham Mahmud

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To compare outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to angiography (ANGIO) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background: The results of a recent randomized controlled trial reported unfavorable effects of routine measurement of FFR, thereby questioning its validity in improving clinical outcomes. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried from January, 2000 through December, 2016 and studies comparing FFR and ANGIO guided PCI were included. Clinical endpoints assessed during hospitalization and at follow-up (>9 months) included: myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and all-cause mortality. Additional endpoints included number of PCIs performed, procedure cost, procedure time, contrast volume, and fluoroscopy time. Results: A total of 51,350 patients (age 65 years, 73% male) were included from 11 studies. The use of FFR was associated with significantly lower likelihood of MI during hospitalization (OR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.75, P = 0.0003) and at follow-up (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.70, P = 0.00001). Similarly, FFR-PCI was associated with lower in-hospital MACE (OR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.70, P = 0.0001) and follow-up MACE (OR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.86, P = 0.004). In-hospital TLR was lower in the FFR-PCI group (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.97, P = 0.04), but not at follow-up (OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.37, P = 0.46). There was no difference of in-hospital (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.09, P = 0.09) or follow-up all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.59 to 1.20, P = 0.34). FFR-PCI was associated with significantly less PCI (OR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.15, P = 0.00001) with lower procedure cost (Mean Difference −4.27, 95% CI: −6.61 to −1.92, P = 0.0004). However, no difference in procedure time (Mean Difference 0.79, 95% CI: −2.41 to 3.99, P = 0.63), contrast use (Mean Difference −8.28, 95% CI: −24.25 to 7.68, P = 0.31) or fluoroscopy time (Mean Difference 0.38, 95% CI: −2.54 to 3.31, P = 0.80) was observed. Conclusions: FFR-PCI as compared to ANGIO-PCI is associated with lower in-hospital and follow-up MI and MACE rates. Although, in-hospital TLR was lower in the FFR-PCI group, this benefit was not present after 9 months. FFR-PCI group was also associated with less PCI and lower procedure costs with no effect on procedure time, contrast volume or fluoroscopy time.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)18-27
Number of pages10
JournalCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume92
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Angiography
Fluoroscopy
Myocardial Infarction
Costs and Cost Analysis
Hospitalization
Mortality
MEDLINE
Randomized Controlled Trials

Keywords

  • coronary stenosis
  • fractional flow reserve
  • hemodynamic assessment
  • percutaneous coronary intervention

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention : An updated systematic review. / Enezate, Tariq; Omran, Jad; Al-Dadah, Ashraf S.; Alpert, Martin; White, Christopher J.; Abu-Fadel, Mazen; Aronow, Herbert; Cohen, Mauricio G; Aguirre, Frank; Patel, Mitul; Mahmud, Ehtisham.

In: Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, Vol. 92, No. 1, 01.07.2018, p. 18-27.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Enezate, T, Omran, J, Al-Dadah, AS, Alpert, M, White, CJ, Abu-Fadel, M, Aronow, H, Cohen, MG, Aguirre, F, Patel, M & Mahmud, E 2018, 'Fractional flow reserve versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated systematic review', Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.27302
Enezate, Tariq ; Omran, Jad ; Al-Dadah, Ashraf S. ; Alpert, Martin ; White, Christopher J. ; Abu-Fadel, Mazen ; Aronow, Herbert ; Cohen, Mauricio G ; Aguirre, Frank ; Patel, Mitul ; Mahmud, Ehtisham. / Fractional flow reserve versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention : An updated systematic review. In: Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2018 ; Vol. 92, No. 1. pp. 18-27.
@article{76eaae8b934b41d4aed1c6c3507710f3,
title = "Fractional flow reserve versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated systematic review",
abstract = "Objectives: To compare outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to angiography (ANGIO) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background: The results of a recent randomized controlled trial reported unfavorable effects of routine measurement of FFR, thereby questioning its validity in improving clinical outcomes. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried from January, 2000 through December, 2016 and studies comparing FFR and ANGIO guided PCI were included. Clinical endpoints assessed during hospitalization and at follow-up (>9 months) included: myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and all-cause mortality. Additional endpoints included number of PCIs performed, procedure cost, procedure time, contrast volume, and fluoroscopy time. Results: A total of 51,350 patients (age 65 years, 73{\%} male) were included from 11 studies. The use of FFR was associated with significantly lower likelihood of MI during hospitalization (OR 0.54, 95{\%} CI: 0.39 to 0.75, P = 0.0003) and at follow-up (OR 0.53, 95{\%} CI: 0.40 to 0.70, P = 0.00001). Similarly, FFR-PCI was associated with lower in-hospital MACE (OR 0.51, 95{\%} CI: 0.37 to 0.70, P = 0.0001) and follow-up MACE (OR 0.63, 95{\%} CI: 0.47 to 0.86, P = 0.004). In-hospital TLR was lower in the FFR-PCI group (OR 0.62, 95{\%} CI: 0.40 to 0.97, P = 0.04), but not at follow-up (OR 0.83, 95{\%} CI: 0.50 to 1.37, P = 0.46). There was no difference of in-hospital (OR 0.58, 95{\%} CI: 0.31 to 1.09, P = 0.09) or follow-up all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95{\%}CI: 0.59 to 1.20, P = 0.34). FFR-PCI was associated with significantly less PCI (OR 0.04, 95{\%} CI: 0.01 to 0.15, P = 0.00001) with lower procedure cost (Mean Difference −4.27, 95{\%} CI: −6.61 to −1.92, P = 0.0004). However, no difference in procedure time (Mean Difference 0.79, 95{\%} CI: −2.41 to 3.99, P = 0.63), contrast use (Mean Difference −8.28, 95{\%} CI: −24.25 to 7.68, P = 0.31) or fluoroscopy time (Mean Difference 0.38, 95{\%} CI: −2.54 to 3.31, P = 0.80) was observed. Conclusions: FFR-PCI as compared to ANGIO-PCI is associated with lower in-hospital and follow-up MI and MACE rates. Although, in-hospital TLR was lower in the FFR-PCI group, this benefit was not present after 9 months. FFR-PCI group was also associated with less PCI and lower procedure costs with no effect on procedure time, contrast volume or fluoroscopy time.",
keywords = "coronary stenosis, fractional flow reserve, hemodynamic assessment, percutaneous coronary intervention",
author = "Tariq Enezate and Jad Omran and Al-Dadah, {Ashraf S.} and Martin Alpert and White, {Christopher J.} and Mazen Abu-Fadel and Herbert Aronow and Cohen, {Mauricio G} and Frank Aguirre and Mitul Patel and Ehtisham Mahmud",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/ccd.27302",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "92",
pages = "18--27",
journal = "Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions",
issn = "1522-1946",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fractional flow reserve versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention

T2 - An updated systematic review

AU - Enezate, Tariq

AU - Omran, Jad

AU - Al-Dadah, Ashraf S.

AU - Alpert, Martin

AU - White, Christopher J.

AU - Abu-Fadel, Mazen

AU - Aronow, Herbert

AU - Cohen, Mauricio G

AU - Aguirre, Frank

AU - Patel, Mitul

AU - Mahmud, Ehtisham

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Objectives: To compare outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to angiography (ANGIO) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background: The results of a recent randomized controlled trial reported unfavorable effects of routine measurement of FFR, thereby questioning its validity in improving clinical outcomes. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried from January, 2000 through December, 2016 and studies comparing FFR and ANGIO guided PCI were included. Clinical endpoints assessed during hospitalization and at follow-up (>9 months) included: myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and all-cause mortality. Additional endpoints included number of PCIs performed, procedure cost, procedure time, contrast volume, and fluoroscopy time. Results: A total of 51,350 patients (age 65 years, 73% male) were included from 11 studies. The use of FFR was associated with significantly lower likelihood of MI during hospitalization (OR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.75, P = 0.0003) and at follow-up (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.70, P = 0.00001). Similarly, FFR-PCI was associated with lower in-hospital MACE (OR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.70, P = 0.0001) and follow-up MACE (OR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.86, P = 0.004). In-hospital TLR was lower in the FFR-PCI group (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.97, P = 0.04), but not at follow-up (OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.37, P = 0.46). There was no difference of in-hospital (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.09, P = 0.09) or follow-up all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.59 to 1.20, P = 0.34). FFR-PCI was associated with significantly less PCI (OR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.15, P = 0.00001) with lower procedure cost (Mean Difference −4.27, 95% CI: −6.61 to −1.92, P = 0.0004). However, no difference in procedure time (Mean Difference 0.79, 95% CI: −2.41 to 3.99, P = 0.63), contrast use (Mean Difference −8.28, 95% CI: −24.25 to 7.68, P = 0.31) or fluoroscopy time (Mean Difference 0.38, 95% CI: −2.54 to 3.31, P = 0.80) was observed. Conclusions: FFR-PCI as compared to ANGIO-PCI is associated with lower in-hospital and follow-up MI and MACE rates. Although, in-hospital TLR was lower in the FFR-PCI group, this benefit was not present after 9 months. FFR-PCI group was also associated with less PCI and lower procedure costs with no effect on procedure time, contrast volume or fluoroscopy time.

AB - Objectives: To compare outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to angiography (ANGIO) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background: The results of a recent randomized controlled trial reported unfavorable effects of routine measurement of FFR, thereby questioning its validity in improving clinical outcomes. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried from January, 2000 through December, 2016 and studies comparing FFR and ANGIO guided PCI were included. Clinical endpoints assessed during hospitalization and at follow-up (>9 months) included: myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and all-cause mortality. Additional endpoints included number of PCIs performed, procedure cost, procedure time, contrast volume, and fluoroscopy time. Results: A total of 51,350 patients (age 65 years, 73% male) were included from 11 studies. The use of FFR was associated with significantly lower likelihood of MI during hospitalization (OR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.75, P = 0.0003) and at follow-up (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.70, P = 0.00001). Similarly, FFR-PCI was associated with lower in-hospital MACE (OR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.70, P = 0.0001) and follow-up MACE (OR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.86, P = 0.004). In-hospital TLR was lower in the FFR-PCI group (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.97, P = 0.04), but not at follow-up (OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.37, P = 0.46). There was no difference of in-hospital (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.09, P = 0.09) or follow-up all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.59 to 1.20, P = 0.34). FFR-PCI was associated with significantly less PCI (OR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.15, P = 0.00001) with lower procedure cost (Mean Difference −4.27, 95% CI: −6.61 to −1.92, P = 0.0004). However, no difference in procedure time (Mean Difference 0.79, 95% CI: −2.41 to 3.99, P = 0.63), contrast use (Mean Difference −8.28, 95% CI: −24.25 to 7.68, P = 0.31) or fluoroscopy time (Mean Difference 0.38, 95% CI: −2.54 to 3.31, P = 0.80) was observed. Conclusions: FFR-PCI as compared to ANGIO-PCI is associated with lower in-hospital and follow-up MI and MACE rates. Although, in-hospital TLR was lower in the FFR-PCI group, this benefit was not present after 9 months. FFR-PCI group was also associated with less PCI and lower procedure costs with no effect on procedure time, contrast volume or fluoroscopy time.

KW - coronary stenosis

KW - fractional flow reserve

KW - hemodynamic assessment

KW - percutaneous coronary intervention

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051006307&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85051006307&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ccd.27302

DO - 10.1002/ccd.27302

M3 - Article

C2 - 28980386

AN - SCOPUS:85051006307

VL - 92

SP - 18

EP - 27

JO - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

JF - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

SN - 1522-1946

IS - 1

ER -