Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Circ Cardiovasc Interv ; 17(5): e013844, 2024 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38771911

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (µFR) is an emerging technique that requires only 1 projection of coronary angiography with similar accuracy to quantitative flow ratio (QFR). However, it has not been validated for the evaluation of noninfarct-related artery (non-IRA) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) settings. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of µFR and the safety of deferring non-IRA lesions with µFR >0.80 in the setting of AMI. METHODS: µFR and QFR were analyzed for non-IRA lesions of patients with AMI enrolled in the FRAME-AMI trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of Non-Infarction Related Artery Stenosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction), consisting of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention groups. The diagnostic accuracy of µFR was compared with QFR and FFR. Patients were classified by the non-IRA µFR value of 0.80 as a cutoff value. The primary outcome was a vessel-oriented composite outcome, a composite of cardiac death, non-IRA-related myocardial infarction, and non-IRA-related repeat revascularization. RESULTS: µFR and QFR analyses were feasible in 443 patients (552 lesions). µFR showed acceptable correlation with FFR (R=0.777; P<0.001), comparable C-index with QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80 (µFR versus QFR: 0.926 versus 0.961, P=0.070), and shorter total analysis time (mean, 32.7 versus 186.9 s; P<0.001). Non-IRA with µFR >0.80 and deferred percutaneous coronary intervention had a significantly lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than non-IRA with performed percutaneous coronary intervention (3.4% versus 10.5%; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.14-0.99]; P=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multivessel AMI, µFR of non-IRA showed acceptable diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of QFR to predict FFR ≤0.80. Deferred non-IRA with µFR >0.80 showed a lower risk of vessel-oriented composite outcome than revascularized non-IRA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02715518.


Assuntos
Angiografia Coronária , Doença da Artéria Coronariana , Vasos Coronários , Reserva Fracionada de Fluxo Miocárdico , Infarto do Miocárdio , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Resultado do Tratamento , Infarto do Miocárdio/fisiopatologia , Infarto do Miocárdio/diagnóstico por imagem , Infarto do Miocárdio/terapia , Vasos Coronários/diagnóstico por imagem , Vasos Coronários/fisiopatologia , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/efeitos adversos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/terapia , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/diagnóstico por imagem , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/fisiopatologia , Fatores de Risco , Estenose Coronária/fisiopatologia , Estenose Coronária/terapia , Estenose Coronária/diagnóstico por imagem , Estenose Coronária/diagnóstico , Cateterismo Cardíaco , Estudos Prospectivos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA