Fractional flow reserve in assessment of intermediate non-culprit lesions in acute myocardial infarction

Context: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of intermediate non-culprit arteries can reduce death or heart attack risk in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI with angio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of pharmacy & pharmacognosy research Vol. 11; no. 5; pp. 823 - 832
Main Authors Chau, Do Truong Son, Truong, Quang Binh, Nguyen, Do Anh, Le, Manh Thong, Nguyen, Dinh Dat, Hoang, Anh Tien
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published GarVal Editorial Ltda 01.09.2023
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Context: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of intermediate non-culprit arteries can reduce death or heart attack risk in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI for intermediate non-culprit lesions in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. Methods: In this cohort study, acute myocardial infarction patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who had successful percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit artery were divided into group of patients receiving FFR-guided PCI (FFR≤0.80, n = 31) and group of patients receiving angiography-guided PCI (diameter stenosis of 50-90%, n = 62) for lesions in non-culprit arteries. These two groups were followed for at least 1 year for major adverse cardiovascular events. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in major cardiovascular events between FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention group and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention group. However, FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention group had a lower mortality rate compared to the angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention group (3.2% vs. 4.8%). Additionally, there were no reported cases of myocardial infarction in angiography-guided PCI group, while angiography-guided PCI group had a rate of 1.6%. Conclusions: This study found that it remains uncertain whether FFR-guided PCI is superior than angiography-guided PCI for intermediate non-culprit lesions in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease.
ISSN:0719-4250
0719-4250
DOI:10.56499/jppres23.1696_11.5.823