Abstract
We conducted a review and meta-analysis of published data to compare revascularization to deferral strategy for coronary lesions with grey zone fractional flow reserve (FFR). Optimal treatment for coronary stenoses with FFR values between 0.75 and 0.80, the so-called grey zone, remains a matter of debate. We included all studies evaluating revascularization versus deferral for lesions with grey zone FFR. The primary outcome was study-defined major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were the composite of death or MI and target vessel revascularization (TVR). A total of 2362 patients were included, of whom 1181 underwent revascularization (revascularization group) and 1181 received medical treatment only (deferral group). After a mean follow-up period of 2.4 years, no difference was found for the primary outcome of the study-defined MACE between the two groups [RR = 1.33 (0.73-2.44), p = 0.35]. In addition, there was no difference for the secondary outcomes of death or MI and TVR between the two groups [RR = 1.39 (0.56-3.47), p = 0.48 and RR = 1.49 (0.89-2.51), p = 0.13, respectively]. In this meta-analysis revascularization of coronary stenoses with grey zone FFR showed no advantage over a deferral strategy in terms of study-defined MACE. Case by case judgment should be implemented to guide treatment in this special subset of patients.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call