Fractional flow reserve versus intravascular imaging to guide decision‐making for percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate lesions: A meta‐analysis

Both fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravascular imaging (IVI) have been used to guide the decision‐making for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in intermediate coronary stenosis. Nevertheless, studies that directly compared the prognostic significance of these two strategies are scarce.

[1]  Jun Jiang,et al.  Fractional Flow Reserve or Intravascular Ultrasonography to Guide PCI. , 2022, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  J. Gunn,et al.  Routine Pressure Wire Assessment Versus Conventional Angiography in the Management of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: The RIPCORD 2 Trial , 2022, Circulation.

[3]  J. Narula,et al.  Interactions Between Morphological Plaque Characteristics and Coronary Physiology: From Pathophysiological Basis to Clinical Implications. , 2021, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[4]  J. Granada,et al.  Thin-cap fibroatheroma predicts clinical events in diabetic patients with normal fractional flow reserve: the COMBINE OCT-FFR trial. , 2021, European heart journal.

[5]  J. Cairns,et al.  Nonculprit Lesion Plaque Morphology in Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction , 2020, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[6]  P. Serruys,et al.  Optical coherence tomography enables more accurate detection of functionally significant intermediate non-left main coronary artery stenoses than intravascular ultrasound: A meta-analysis of 6919 patients and 7537 lesions. , 2020, International journal of cardiology.

[7]  A. M. Leone,et al.  Fractional Flow Reserve or Optical Coherence Tomography to Guide Management of Angiographically Intermediate Coronary Stenosis: A Single-Center Trial. , 2020, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[8]  S. Sonoda,et al.  TCT-588 Mid- and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided Versus Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  Eloisa Arbustini,et al.  Relationship between coronary plaque morphology of the left anterior descending artery and 12 months clinical outcome: the CLIMA study. , 2019, European heart journal.

[10]  A. M. Leone,et al.  Prospective Randomized Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Optical Coherence Tomography to Guide Revascularization of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses: One‐Month Results , 2019, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[11]  Hyuk-Jae Chang,et al.  Prognostic Implications of Plaque Characteristics and Stenosis Severity in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  P. Seferovic,et al.  2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. , 2019, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[13]  Volkmar Falk,et al.  2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. , 2018, European heart journal.

[14]  Ajay K. Jain,et al.  Angiography Alone Versus Angiography Plus Optical Coherence Tomography to Guide Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Outcomes From the Pan-London PCI Cohort. , 2018, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[15]  G. Rioufol,et al.  Five‐Year Outcomes with PCI Guided by Fractional Flow Reserve , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  P. Serruys,et al.  Near-infrared spectroscopy-derived lipid core burden index predicts adverse cardiovascular outcome in patients with coronary artery disease during long-term follow-up , 2018, European heart journal.

[17]  G. Mintz,et al.  Intravascular imaging in coronary artery disease , 2017, The Lancet.

[18]  F. Neumann,et al.  Fractional Flow Reserve‐Guided Multivessel Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  Habib Samady,et al.  Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomised controlled trial , 2016, The Lancet.

[20]  Olivier Morel,et al.  Optical Coherence Tomography to Optimize Results of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Non–ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: Results of the Multicenter, Randomized DOCTORS Study (Does Optical Coherence Tomography Optimize Results of Stenting) , 2016, Circulation.

[21]  Yangsoo Jang,et al.  Effect of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided vs Angiography-Guided Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: The IVUS-XPL Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2015, JAMA.

[22]  Volker Klauss,et al.  Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[23]  L. Køber,et al.  Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[24]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Accuracy of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography in identifying functionally significant coronary stenosis according to vessel diameter: A meta-analysis of 2,581 patients and 2,807 lesions. , 2015, American heart journal.

[25]  A. Briggs,et al.  Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS–NSTEMI randomized trial , 2014, European heart journal.

[26]  Q. Cao,et al.  [Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for intermediate coronary artery disease guided by intravascular ultrasound or fractional flow reserve]. , 2014, Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University.

[27]  Seung‐Jung Park,et al.  Meta-analysis of outcomes after intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in 26,503 patients enrolled in three randomized trials and 14 observational studies. , 2014, The American journal of cardiology.

[28]  Gary S. Mintz,et al.  Relationship Between Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance and Clinical Outcomes After Drug-Eluting Stents: The Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) Study , 2014, Circulation.

[29]  A. Khashaba,et al.  Clinical outcomes after intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve assessment of intermediate coronary lesions. Propensity score matching of large cohorts from two institutions with a differential approach. , 2013 .

[30]  G. Stanković,et al.  Intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve in assessment of the intermediate coronary stenosis: what you see is not what you get. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[31]  Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai,et al.  Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide decision-making during percutaneous coronary intervention: the Centro per la Lotta contro l'Infarto-Optimisation of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CLI-OPCI) study. , 2012, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[32]  Nikola Jagic,et al.  Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[33]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[34]  Akiko Maehara,et al.  A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[35]  B. Koo,et al.  Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate coronary artery disease: fractional flow reserve-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided. , 2010, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[36]  U. Siebert,et al.  Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[37]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement , 2009, PloS one.

[38]  William Wijns,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[39]  J. Tobis,et al.  Assessment of intermediate severity coronary lesions in the catheterization laboratory. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[40]  P. H. van der Voort,et al.  Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[41]  Lutfu Askin.  The Clinical Value of Syntax Scores in Predicting Coronary Artery Disease Outcomes , 2022, Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications.

[42]  M. Kern,et al.  Invasive Testing for Coronary Artery Disease: FFR, IVUS, OCT, NIRS. , 2016, Heart failure clinics.

[43]  D. Berman,et al.  Atherosclerotic plaque characteristics by CT angiography identify coronary lesions that cause ischemia: a direct comparison to fractional flow reserve. , 2015, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[44]  P. Tugwell,et al.  The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses , 2014 .