Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prognostic Implications of Fractional Flow Reserve After Coronary Stenting : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      research-article
      , MD 1 , , MD, PhD 1 , , , MD, PhD 2 , , MD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD, MPH, PhD 3 , , MD, PhD 4 , , MD, PhD 5 , , MD, PhD 6 , , MD, PhD 7 , , MD, PhD 8 , , MD, PhD 9 , , MD, PhD 10 , , MD 11 , , MD, PhD 12 , , MD 13 , 14 , , MD 15 , 16 , , MD 17 , , MD, PhD 17 , , MD, PhD 18 , , MD 19 , , MD 20 , , MD, PhD, MSc 21 , , MD 22 , , BSc 23 , , MD, PhD 23 , , MD, PhD 23 , , MD, PhD 23 , , MB, BCh 24 , , MD, PhD 25 , , MD, PhD 25 , 26
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What is the clinical relevance of fractional flow reserve (FFR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent?

          Findings

          In this systematic review and individual patient-level meta-analysis, low post-PCI FFR was common and demonstrated a significant and inverse association with target vessel failure. This association remained consistent for the risk of cardiac death or target vessel myocardial infarction.

          Meaning

          These results support the importance of post-PCI physiologic assessment and the role of post-PCI FFR as a procedural quality metric.

          Abstract

          This systematic review and meta-analysis examines clinical outcomes associated with low fractional flow reserve measures after percutaneous coronary interventions with drug-eluting stents.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Fractional flow reserve (FFR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is generally considered to reflect residual disease. Yet the clinical relevance of post-PCI FFR after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains unclear.

          Objective

          To evaluate the clinical relevance of post-PCI FFR measurement after DES implantation.

          Data Sources

          MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant published articles from inception to June 18, 2022.

          Study Selection

          Published articles that reported post-PCI FFR after DES implantation and its association with clinical outcomes were included.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Patient-level data were collected from the corresponding authors of 17 cohorts using a standardized spreadsheet. Meta-estimates for primary and secondary outcomes were analyzed per patient and using mixed-effects Cox proportional hazard regression with registry identifiers included as a random effect. All processes followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The secondary outcome was a composite of cardiac death or TVMI at 2 years.

          Results

          Of 2268 articles identified, 29 studies met selection criteria. Of these, 28 articles from 17 cohorts provided data, including a total of 5277 patients with 5869 vessels who underwent FFR measurement after DES implantation. Mean (SD) age was 64.4 (10.1) years and 4141 patients (78.5%) were men. Median (IQR) post-PCI FFR was 0.89 (0.84-0.94) and 690 vessels (11.8%) had a post-PCI FFR of 0.80 or below. The cumulative incidence of TVF was 340 patients (7.2%), with cardiac death or TVMI occurring in 111 patients (2.4%) at 2 years. Lower post-PCI FFR significantly increased the risk of TVF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] per 0.01 FFR decrease, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05; P < .001). The risk of cardiac death or MI also increased inversely with post-PCI FFR (adjusted HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07, P = .049). These associations were consistent regardless of age, sex, the presence of hypertension or diabetes, and clinical diagnosis.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Reduced FFR after DES implantation was common and associated with the risks of TVF and of cardiac death or TVMI. These results indicate the prognostic value of post-PCI physiologic assessment after DES implantation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement.

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD) aim to collect, check, and reanalyze individual-level data from all studies addressing a particular research question and are therefore considered a gold standard approach to evidence synthesis. They are likely to be used with increasing frequency as current initiatives to share clinical trial data gain momentum and may be particularly important in reviewing controversial therapeutic areas. To develop PRISMA-IPD as a stand-alone extension to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement, tailored to the specific requirements of reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD. Although developed primarily for reviews of randomized trials, many items will apply in other contexts, including reviews of diagnosis and prognosis. Development of PRISMA-IPD followed the EQUATOR Network framework guidance and used the existing standard PRISMA Statement as a starting point to draft additional relevant material. A web-based survey informed discussion at an international workshop that included researchers, clinicians, methodologists experienced in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD, and journal editors. The statement was drafted and iterative refinements were made by the project, advisory, and development groups. The PRISMA-IPD Development Group reached agreement on the PRISMA-IPD checklist and flow diagram by consensus. Compared with standard PRISMA, the PRISMA-IPD checklist includes 3 new items that address (1) methods of checking the integrity of the IPD (such as pattern of randomization, data consistency, baseline imbalance, and missing data), (2) reporting any important issues that emerge, and (3) exploring variation (such as whether certain types of individual benefit more from the intervention than others). A further additional item was created by reorganization of standard PRISMA items relating to interpreting results. Wording was modified in 23 items to reflect the IPD approach. PRISMA-IPD provides guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group.

              Balloon-expandable coronary-artery stents were developed to prevent coronary restenosis after coronary angioplasty. These devices hold coronary vessels open at sites that have been dilated. However, it is unknown whether stenting improves long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes as compared with standard balloon angioplasty. A total of 520 patients with stable angina and a single coronary-artery lesion were randomly assigned to either stent implantation (262 patients) or standard balloon angioplasty (258 patients). The primary clinical end points were death, the occurrence of a cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, the need for coronary-artery bypass surgery, or a second percutaneous intervention involving the previously treated lesion, either at the time of the initial procedure or during the subsequent seven months. The primary angiographic end point was the minimal luminal diameter at follow-up, as determined by quantitative coronary angiography. After exclusions, 52 patients in the stent group (20 percent) and 76 patients in the angioplasty group (30 percent) reached a primary clinical end point (relative risk, 0.68; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.92; P = 0.02). The difference in clinical-event rates was explained mainly by a reduced need for a second coronary angioplasty in the stent group (relative risk, 0.58; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.85; P = 0.005). The mean (+/- SD) minimal luminal diameters immediately after the procedure were 2.48 +/- 0.39 mm in the stent group and 2.05 +/- 0.33 mm in the angioplasty group; at follow-up, the diameters were 1.82 +/- 0.64 mm in the stent group and 1.73 +/- 0.55 mm in the angioplasty group (P = 0.09), which correspond to rates of restenosis (diameter of stenosis, > or = 50 percent) of 22 and 32 percent, respectively (P = 0.02). Peripheral vascular complications necessitating surgery, blood transfusion, or both were more frequent after stenting than after balloon angioplasty (13.5 vs. 3.1 percent, P < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was significantly longer in the stent group than in the angioplasty group (8.5 vs. 3.1 days, P < 0.001). Over seven months of follow-up, the clinical and angiographic outcomes were better in patients who received a stent than in those who received standard coronary angioplasty. However, this benefit was achieved at the cost of a significantly higher risk of vascular complications at the access site and a longer hospital stay.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                22 September 2022
                September 2022
                22 September 2022
                : 5
                : 9
                : e2232842
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
                [2 ]Department of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
                [3 ]Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Daegu, Korea
                [5 ]Division of Cardiology, Ulsan Hospital, Ulsan, Korea
                [6 ]Department of Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang, Korea
                [7 ]Division of Cardiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
                [8 ]Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan
                [9 ]University Heart Centre Graz, Medical University Graz, Austria
                [10 ]Gottsegen Hungarian Institute of Cardiology, Budapest, Hungary
                [11 ]Weatherhead PET Center For Preventing and Reversing Atherosclerosis, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Medical School and Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston
                [12 ]Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
                [13 ]Division of Cardiovascular Diseases & Hypertension, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
                [14 ]National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Karachi, Pakistan
                [15 ]Central Arkansas VA Health System, Little Rock, Arkansas
                [16 ]University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
                [17 ]Department of Cardiology, Tokyo Medical University Hachioji Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan
                [18 ]Department of Cardiology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea
                [19 ]Department of Cardiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan
                [20 ]Department of Cardiology, Kyoto Second Red Cross Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
                [21 ]Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
                [22 ]Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Alabama, Birmingham
                [23 ]Department of Interventional Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                [24 ]West of Scotland Regional Heart and Lung Centre, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
                [25 ]Cardiovascular Center Aalst, Aalst, Belgium
                [26 ]Department of Cardiology, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: July 30, 2022.
                Published: September 22, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.32842
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Hwang D et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Bon-Kwon Koo, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehang-ro, Chongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea ( bkkoo@ 123456snu.ac.kr ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Koo and Hwang had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Hwang, Koo, Park, Yang, Lee, Doh, Chen, Pijls, Hakeem, Uretsky, Azzalini, Diletti, De Bruyne.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Hwang, Koo, Zhang, Yang, Kim, Yun, Lee, Nam, Shin, Doh, Chen, Kakuta, Toth, Piroth, Johnson, Hakeem, Uretsky, Hokama, Tanaka, Lim, Ito, Matsuo, Azzalini, Leesar, Neleman, van Mieghem, Diletti, Daemen, Collison, Collet.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Hwang, Koo, Yang, Kim, Yun, Lee, Nam, Shin, Doh, Chen, Hokama, Collet.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Koo, Zhang, Park, Yang, Kim, Lee, Doh, Kakuta, Toth, Piroth, Johnson, Pijls, Hakeem, Uretsky, Tanaka, Lim, Ito, Matsuo, Azzalini, Leesar, Neleman, van Mieghem, Diletti, Daemen, Collison, Collet, De Bruyne.
                Statistical analysis: Hwang, Yang, Kim, Yun, Lee, Chen, Johnson, Hakeem.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Koo, Zhang, Park, Yang, Chen, Hakeem, Hokama, Lim, Ito, Azzalini, van Mieghem, Daemen.
                Supervision: Koo, Lee, Doh, Chen, Kakuta, Toth, Pijls, Hakeem, Tanaka, Diletti, Daemen, Collet, De Bruyne.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Koo reported receiving grants from Abbott Vascular and Philips Volcano during the conduct of the study. Dr Johnson reported receiving grants from Philips Volcano, St Jude Medical, Abiomed, and CoreAalst during the conduct of the study; he reported receiving licensing fees from Boston Scientific Institutional and the University of Texas outside the submitted work; in addition, Dr Johnson reported multiple patents pending with University of Texas; he reported receiving honoraria for talks hosted by academic institutions and industry outside the submitted work, which he donates to his institution. Dr Pijls reported receiving an institutional research grant from Abbott; he reported holding minor equity in Philips, Heartflow, GE, and ASML and has patents pending in the field of aortic valve physiology and the coronary microcirculation. Dr Tanaka reported receiving personal fees from Abbott Vascular Japan and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo Co Ltd during the conduct of the study. Dr Azzalini reported receiving personal fees from Abiomed, GE Healthcare, Abbott Vascular, Teleflex, Philips, Asahi Intecc, and Cardiovascular Systems, Inc outside the submitted work. Dr Neleman reported receiving grants from Acist Medical outside the submitted work. Dr van Mieghem reported receiving grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, Abiomed, and PulseCath BV outside the submitted work. Dr Daemen reported receiving grants from Astra Zeneca, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, ACIST Medical, Medtronic, Microport, Pie Medical, and ReCor Medical and consultancy or speaker fees from Abiomed, ACIST Medical, Boston Scientific, PulseCath, Pie Medical, Siemens Health Care, and Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr Collison reported receiving personal fees from Abbott outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Additional Contributions: The statistical part of this work was supported by Medical Research Collaboration Center in Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, Korea.
                Article
                zoi220937
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.32842
                9500557
                36136329
                8bbb80d5-04f4-4643-af3c-235ac202c513
                Copyright 2022 Hwang D et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 19 April 2022
                : 30 July 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Cardiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content330

                Cited by28

                Most referenced authors1,773