SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2016
Comparing the adverse clinical outcomes associated with fraction flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updated meta-analysis of fractional flow reserve versus coronary angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes Following Hemodynamic Parameter or Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents: An Updated Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 28 Randomized Trials and 11,860 Patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Short- and Long-Term Prognosis of Intravascular Ultrasound-Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis Involving 24,783 Patients.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2021Pooled it
- Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multi-vessel disease patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- One-year clinical outcome of angiography, fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio guided percutaneous coronary intervention: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019Article
- Is there a role for fractional flow reserve in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) planning?Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently published randomized controlled trials have shown different results compared to the Fraction Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multi-vessel Evaluation (FAME) study. Therefore, this current analysis aimed to compare the adverse clinical outcomes associated with Fraction Flow Reserve (FFR)-guided versus standard angiography-guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) using a large number of randomized patients.
methodsPubMed/Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were searched for studies comparing FFR-guided with angiography-guided PCI. Mortality, Myocardial Infarction (MI), repeated revascularization and Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACEs) at any follow up period following PCI were considered as the clinical endpoints in this analysis. Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were calculated and the analyses were carried out by the RevMan 5.3 software. Ethical approval was not necessary for this type of study.
resultsA total number of 2138 patients (1080 patients with FFR-guided versus 1058 patients with angiography-guided PCI) were included. Results of this analysis showed mortality not to be significantly different between FFR-guided and angiography-guided PCI with OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.39 - 1.25; P = 0.22, I
conclusionFFR-guided PCI was not associated with significantly higher adverse clinical outcomes when compared to angiography-guided PCI. A significantly lower rate of re-infarction associated with FFR-guided PCI could show an important benefit. However, due to the limited number of patients analyzed, this hypothesis should further be confirmed in future trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.