SynthesisArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2018
Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Strategy in Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional Coronary Artery Assessment: a Systematic Literature Review.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2022Pooled it
- Prognostic impact of fractional flow reserve measurements in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a subanalysis of the FLORIDA study.Heart and vessels · 2023Observational
- Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Lesions-Old and New Kids on the Block.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2021Review
- Long-term outcome after deferred revascularization due to negative fractional flow reserve in intermediate coronary lesions.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2021Article
- Virtual (Computed) Fractional Flow Reserve: Future Role in Acute Coronary Syndromes.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- To Defer or Not Defer? The Challenges of Physiology in Acute Coronary Syndromes.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are limited data on the prognosis of deferral of lesion treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) based on fractional flow reserve (FFR).
objectivesTo provide a systematic review of the current evidence on the prognosis of deferred lesions in ACS patients compared with deferred lesions in non-ACS patients, on the basis of FFR.
methodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 2000 and September 2017 that compared prognosis of deferred revascularization of lesions on the basis of FFR in ACS patients compared with non-ACS patients. We conducted a pooled relative risk meta-analysis of four primary outcomes: mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and target-vessel revascularization (TVR).
resultsWe identified 7 studies that included a total of 5,107 patients. A pooled meta-analysis showed no significant difference in mortality (relative risk [RR] = 1.44; 95% CI, 0.9-2.4), CV mortality (RR = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.4-4.3) and TVR (RR = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.9-2.3) after deferral of revascularization based on FFR between ACS and non-ACS patients. Such deferral was associated with significant additional risk of MI (RR = 1.83; 95% CI = 1.4-2.4) in ACS patients.
conclusionThe prognostic value of FFR in ACS setting is not as good as in stable patients. The results demonstrate an increased risk of MI but not of mortality, CV mortality, and TVR in ACS patients.
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.