Six-Year Follow-Up of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.

Détails

ID Serval
serval:BIB_C8FDF4995DFC
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Six-Year Follow-Up of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.
Périodique
Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions
Auteur⸱e⸱s
Fournier S., Toth G.G., De Bruyne B., Johnson N.P., Ciccarelli G., Xaplanteris P., Milkas A., Strisciuglio T., Bartunek J., Vanderheyden M., Wyffels E., Casselman F., Van Praet F., Stockman B., Degrieck I., Barbato E.
ISSN
1941-7632 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1941-7640
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
06/2018
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
11
Numéro
6
Pages
e006368
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: ppublish
Résumé
Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has been associated with lower number of graft anastomoses, lower rate of on-pump surgery, and higher graft patency rate as compared with angiography-guided CABG surgery. However, no clinical benefit has been reported to date.
Consecutive patients (n=627) treated by CABG between 2006 and 2010 were retrospectively included. In 198 patients, at least 1 stenosis was grafted according to FFR (FFR-guided group), whereas in 429 patients all stenoses were grafted based on angiography (angiography-guided group). The 2 coprimary end points were overall death or myocardial infarction and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) up to 6-year follow-up. In the FFR-guided group, patients were significantly younger (66 [57-73] versus 70 [63-76]; P<0.001), more often male (82% versus 72%; P=0.008), and less often diabetic (21% versus 30%; P=0.023). Clinical follow-up (median, 85 [66-104] months) was analyzed in 396 patients after 1:1 propensity-score matching for these 3 variables. The rate of overall death or myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the FFR-guided (n=31 [16%] versus n=49 [25%]; hazard ratio, 0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.93]; P=0.020) as compared with the angiography-guided group. Major adverse cardiovascular events rate was also numerically lower in the FFR-guided than in the angiography-guided group (n=42 [21%] versus n=52 [26%]; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.16]; P=0.21).
FFR-guided CABG is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of overall death or myocardial infarction at 6-year follow-up as compared with angiography-guided CABG.
Mots-clé
angiography, coronary artery bypass, coronary artery disease, coronary stenosis, fractional flow reserve, myocardial infarction
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
26/08/2019 16:38
Dernière modification de la notice
27/08/2019 5:26
Données d'usage