We have located links that may give you full text access.
Physiologic assessment of moderate coronary lesions: a step towards complete revascularization in coronary artery bypass grafting.
Annals of Translational Medicine 2018 August
Background: An accurate diagnostic assessment of coronary artery disease is crucial for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) to guide complete revascularization have not been adequately studied in patients prior to CABG. We compared an anatomic to a physiologic assessment of moderate coronary lesions (40-70% stenosis) in patients referred for CABG.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 109 medical records of patients who underwent CABG at Tulane Medical Center from 2014 to 2016. Patients were divided into an FFR/iFR-guided and an angiography-guided group. Clinical characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes for the two groups were compared over an 18-month follow-up period.
Results: There were significantly higher rates of three-vessel anastomoses (85.7% vs. 74.7%, P<0.05) and venous grafting (85.7% vs. 76.8%, P<0.05) in the FFR/iFR group. The FFR/iFR group had a lower rate of grafts placed to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) distribution than the angiography group (7.1% vs. 29.5%, P<0.05). The FFR/iFR group had a higher rate of grafts placed to the left circumflex (LCx) artery distribution than the angiography group (28.6% vs. 9.5%, P<0.05). We observed a trend toward reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (7.1% vs. 11.6%, P=0.369) and angina (0.0% vs. 6.3%, P=0.429) in the FFR/iFR group compared to the angiography group over 18 months.
Conclusions: Physiologic assessment of coronary lesions can effectively guide complete revascularization in patients undergoing CABG. Moreover, FFR/iFR-guided CABG was associated with significantly higher rates of three-vessel anastomoses, venous grafting, and graft distribution to the circumflex system.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 109 medical records of patients who underwent CABG at Tulane Medical Center from 2014 to 2016. Patients were divided into an FFR/iFR-guided and an angiography-guided group. Clinical characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes for the two groups were compared over an 18-month follow-up period.
Results: There were significantly higher rates of three-vessel anastomoses (85.7% vs. 74.7%, P<0.05) and venous grafting (85.7% vs. 76.8%, P<0.05) in the FFR/iFR group. The FFR/iFR group had a lower rate of grafts placed to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) distribution than the angiography group (7.1% vs. 29.5%, P<0.05). The FFR/iFR group had a higher rate of grafts placed to the left circumflex (LCx) artery distribution than the angiography group (28.6% vs. 9.5%, P<0.05). We observed a trend toward reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (7.1% vs. 11.6%, P=0.369) and angina (0.0% vs. 6.3%, P=0.429) in the FFR/iFR group compared to the angiography group over 18 months.
Conclusions: Physiologic assessment of coronary lesions can effectively guide complete revascularization in patients undergoing CABG. Moreover, FFR/iFR-guided CABG was associated with significantly higher rates of three-vessel anastomoses, venous grafting, and graft distribution to the circumflex system.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app