A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization versus culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Introduction: The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) remains an area of research and debate. Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularization (CR) by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as an alternative to traditional culprit-only PCI.

Objective: To investigate the outcomes of FFR-guided CR versus culprit-only PCI in patients with MI and multivessel CAD.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FFR-guided CR versus culprit-only PCI in MI patients with multivessel CAD. Outcomes included a composite of all-cause death, MI, stroke and repeat revascularization, these individual outcomes, cardiac death, stent thrombosis (definite or probable), and contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CIAKI). Random effects models were used to generate risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

Result: The search identified 5 RCTs including 4618 patients with a median follow-up duration of 3 years. Compared with culprit-only PCI, FFR-guided CR was associated with less composite adverse events (RR 0.73; 95%CI 0.57-0.92; p = 0.009), cardiac death (RR 0.73; 95%CI 0.55-0.97; p = 0.03), and repeat revascularization (RR 0.61; 95%CI 0.44-0.84; p = 0.003). Both strategies were similar in terms of all-cause death, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and CIAKI.

Conclusion: FFR-guided complete revascularization appears to be superior to culprit-only PCI in reducing composite adverse events, cardiac death, and the need for repeat revascularization in patients with MI and multivessel CAD without a significant impact on recurrent myocardial infarction rates.

Social Media Abstract: 4618-patient meta-analysis: in MI w/ multivessel #CAD, #FFR-guided complete revascularization yields less composite adverse events, cardiac death & repeat revascularization than culprit-only #PCI.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2024.12.004DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

complete revascularization
16
culprit-only pci
16
repeat revascularization
16
cardiac death
16
versus culprit-only
12
myocardial infarction
12
patients multivessel
12
composite adverse
12
adverse events
12
revascularization
9

Similar Publications