TY - JOUR
T1 - FFR- Versus Angiography-Guided Revascularization for Nonculprit Stenosis in STEMI and Multivessel Disease
T2 - A Network Meta-Analysis
AU - Elbadawi, Ayman
AU - Dang, Alexander T.
AU - Hamed, Mohamed
AU - Eid, Mennaallah
AU - Prakash Hiriyur Prakash, Meghana
AU - Saleh, Mohammed
AU - Gad, Mohamed
AU - Mamas, Mamas A.
AU - Rahman, Faisal
AU - Elgendy, Islam Y.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation
PY - 2022/3/28
Y1 - 2022/3/28
N2 - Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided versus angiography-guided approaches for nonculprit stenosis among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. Background: The optimal strategy to guide revascularization of nonculprit stenosis among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease remains uncertain. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials evaluating the outcomes of culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization (CR), or FFR-guided CR. A pairwise meta-analysis comparing CR versus culprit-only revascularization and a network meta-analysis comparing the different revascularization techniques were conducted. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results: The analysis included 11 trials with 8,195 patients. CR (ie, angiography-guided or FFR-guided CR) was associated with a lower incidence of MACE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.59), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.98), recurrent myocardial infarction (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.95), and repeat ischemia-driven revascularization (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.35). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the incidence of MACE was lower with both angiography-guided CR (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.58) and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.78) compared with a culprit-only approach, while there was no difference in risk for MACE between angiography-guided and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.29). Conclusions: Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, CR, with angiographic or FFR guidance for nonculprit stenosis, was associated with lower incidence of adverse events compared with culprit-only revascularization. FFR-guided CR was not superior to angiography-guided CR in reducing the incidence of adverse events. Future studies investigating other tools to risk-stratify nonculprit stenoses are encouraged.
AB - Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided versus angiography-guided approaches for nonculprit stenosis among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. Background: The optimal strategy to guide revascularization of nonculprit stenosis among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease remains uncertain. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials evaluating the outcomes of culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization (CR), or FFR-guided CR. A pairwise meta-analysis comparing CR versus culprit-only revascularization and a network meta-analysis comparing the different revascularization techniques were conducted. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results: The analysis included 11 trials with 8,195 patients. CR (ie, angiography-guided or FFR-guided CR) was associated with a lower incidence of MACE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.59), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.98), recurrent myocardial infarction (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.95), and repeat ischemia-driven revascularization (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.35). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the incidence of MACE was lower with both angiography-guided CR (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.58) and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.78) compared with a culprit-only approach, while there was no difference in risk for MACE between angiography-guided and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.29). Conclusions: Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, CR, with angiographic or FFR guidance for nonculprit stenosis, was associated with lower incidence of adverse events compared with culprit-only revascularization. FFR-guided CR was not superior to angiography-guided CR in reducing the incidence of adverse events. Future studies investigating other tools to risk-stratify nonculprit stenoses are encouraged.
KW - FFR
KW - STEMI
KW - angiography
KW - complete revascularization
KW - multivessel disease
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126063009&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85126063009&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.01.002
DO - 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.01.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 35331458
AN - SCOPUS:85126063009
SN - 1936-8798
VL - 15
SP - 656
EP - 666
JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
IS - 6
ER -