Influence of fractional flow reserve on grafts patency: Systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis
- PMID: 34233071
- PMCID: PMC9546321
- DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29864
Influence of fractional flow reserve on grafts patency: Systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the impact of invasive functional guidance for coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) on graft failure.
Background: Data on the impact of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in guiding CABG are still limited.
Methods: Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis were performed. Primary objective was the risk of graft failure, stratified by FFR. Risk estimates are reported as odds ratios (ORs) derived from the aggregated data using random-effects models. Individual patient data were analyzed using mixed effect model to assess relationship between FFR and graft failure. This meta-analysis is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020180444).
Results: Four prospective studies comprising 503 patients referred for CABG, with 1471 coronaries, assessed by FFR were included. Graft status was available for 1039 conduits at median of 12.0 [IQR 6.6; 12.0] months. Risk of graft failure was higher in vessels with preserved FFR (OR 5.74, 95% CI 1.71-19.29). Every 0.10 FFR units decrease in the coronaries was associated with 56% risk reduction of graft failure (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.59). FFR cut-off to predict graft failure was 0.79.
Conclusion: Surgical grafting of coronaries with functionally nonsignificant stenoses was associated with higher risk of graft failure.
Keywords: coronary artery bypass surgery; fractional flow reserve; graft patency.
© 2021 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Conflict of interest statement
GT reports receiving research grants from Boston Scientific, Terumo and Abbott Vascular; and consultancy fees from Abbott Vascular, Biotronik and Medtronic. CC reports receiving research grants from Biosensor, Heart Flow Inc. and Abbott Vascular; and consultancy fees from Heart Flow Inc. and Philips Volcano. BDB reports receiving consultancy fees on his behalf from Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Opsens. EB receives speaker's fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, General Electrics, and Opsens outside the present work. Other authors report no conflicts of interest.
Figures
References
-
- van Nunen LX, Zimmermann FM, Tonino PA, 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. Lancet. 2015;386:1853–60. - PubMed
-
- Xaplanteris P, Fournier S, Pijls NHJ, et al. Five‐year outcomes with PCI guided by fractional flow reserve N Engl J Med 2018;379:250–259. - PubMed
-
- Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2020;41:407–477. - PubMed
-
- Botman CJ, Schonberger J, Koolen S, et al. Does stenosis severity of native vessels influence bypass graft patency? A prospective fractional flow reserve‐guided study. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:2093–7. - PubMed
-
- Toth G, De Bruyne B, Casselman F, et al. Fractional flow reserve‐guided versus angiography‐guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 2013;128:1405–11. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
