Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5090/jcs.22.072

The Impact of Fractional Flow Reserve on Clinical Outcomes after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-analysis  

Yoonjin, Kang (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
Heeju, Hong (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
Suk Ho, Sohn (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
Myoung-jin, Jang (Medical Research Collaborating Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
Ho Young, Hwang (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
Publication Information
Journal of Chest Surgery / v.55, no.6, 2022 , pp. 442-451 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of fractional flow reserve (FFR) on clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: Five online databases were searched for studies that (1) enrolled patients who underwent isolated CABG or CABG with aortic valve replacement and (2) demonstrated the effect of an FFR-guided strategy on major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after surgery based on a randomized controlled trial or adjusted analysis. MACE included cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (MI), and repeated revascularization. The primary outcomes were all MACE outcomes and a composite of all-cause death and MI, and the secondary outcomes were the individual MACE outcomes. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and the Egger test. Results: Six articles (3 randomized and 3 non-randomized studies: n=1,027) were selected. MACE data were extracted from 4 studies. The pooled analyses showed that the risk of MACE was not significantly different between patients who underwent FFR-guided CABG and those who underwent angiography-guided CABG (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.57-1.12). However, the risk of the composite of death or MI was significantly lower in patients undergoing FFR-guided CABG (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.94). The individual MACE outcomes were not significantly different between FFR-guided and angiography-guided CABG. Conclusion: FFR-guided CABG might be beneficial in terms of the composite outcome of death or MI compared with angiography-guided CABG although data are limited.
Keywords
Fractional flow reserve; Coronary artery bypass grafting; Statistics; Meta-analysis;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Toth GG, Toth B, Johnson NP, et al. Revascularization decisions in patients with stable angina and intermediate lesions: results of the international survey on interventional strategy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:751-9. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001608    DOI
2 Toth G, Hamilos M, Pyxaras S, et al. Evolving concepts of angiogram: fractional flow reserve discordances in 4000 coronary stenoses. Eur Heart J 2014;35:2831-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu094    DOI
3 Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:2105-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.01.087    DOI
4 Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009;360:213-24. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0807611    DOI
5 Ciccarelli G, Barbato E, Toth GG, et al. Angiography versus hemodynamics to predict the natural history of coronary stenoses: fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation 2 substudy. Circulation 2018;137:1475-85. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028782    DOI
6 van Nunen LX, Zimmermann FM, Tonino PA, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;386:1853-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00057-4    DOI
7 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010;8:336-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007    DOI
8 Sterne JA, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898    DOI
9 Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919    DOI
10 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557    DOI
11 Daly C, Anwer S, Welton NJ, Dias S, Ades AE. Meta-analysis of event outcomes: guideline methodology document 3. Bristol: NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit; 2021. 
12 Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000;56:455-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x    DOI
13 Fournier S, Toth GG, De Bruyne B, et al. Six-year follow-up of fractional flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2018;11:e006368. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006368    DOI
14 Moscona JC, Stencel JD, Milligan G, et al. Physiologic assessment of moderate coronary lesions: a step towards complete revascularization in coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Transl Med 2018;6:300. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.06.31    DOI
15 Di Gioia G, Pellicano M, Toth GG, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided revascularization in patients with aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 2016;117:1511-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.02.023    DOI
16 Thuesen AL, Riber LP, Veien KT, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiographically-guided coronary artery bypass grafting. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:2732-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.043    DOI
17 Toth GG, De Bruyne B, Kala P, et al. Graft patency after FFR-guided versus angiography-guided coronary artery bypass grafting: the GRAFFITI trial. EuroIntervention 2019;15:e999-1005. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00463    DOI
18 Rioufol G, Derimay F, Roubille F, et al. Fractional flow reserve to guide treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;78:1875-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.08.061    DOI
19 Ferguson TB Jr, Chen C, Buch AN. Fractional flow reserve-guided coronary bypass surgery: should surgeons use it? Curr Opin Cardiol 2013;28:654-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0b013e32836581a3    DOI
20 Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019;40:87-165. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394    DOI
21 Bruno F, D'Ascenzo F, Marengo G, et al. Fractional flow reserve guided versus angiographic guided surgical revascularization: a meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2021;98:E18-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29427    DOI
22 Toth G, De Bruyne B, Casselman F, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 2013;128:1405-11. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.002740    DOI
23 Changal K, Patel M, Salman F, Nazir S, Gupta R. Meta-analysis comparing angiography-guided versus FFR-guided coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol 2020;135:184-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.09.002    DOI
24 Casselman F, Van der Merwe J, Ferrara A, Barbato E. The present day potential role of fractional flow reserve-guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:926-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.12.021    DOI
25 Timbadia D, Ler A, Sazzad F, Alexiou C, Kofidis T. FFR-guided versus coronary angiogram-guided CABG: a review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. J Card Surg 2020;35:2785-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.14880    DOI
26 Jayakumar S, Bilkhu R, Ayis S, Nowell J, Bogle R, Jahangiri M. The role of fractional flow reserve in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a meta-analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2020;30:671-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivaa006    DOI
27 Toth GG, Collet C, Thuesen AL, et al. Influence of fractional flow reserve on grafts patency: systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2022;99:730-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29864    DOI
28 Boyd JH. FFR 4 CABG: more than a vanity plate. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:933-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.12.031    DOI
29 Pellicano M, De Bruyne B, Toth GG, Casselman F, Wijns W, Barbato E. Fractional flow reserve to guide and to assess coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur Heart J 2017;38:1959-68. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw505    DOI
30 Brown AJ, Teng Z, Evans PC, Gillard JH, Samady H, Bennett MR. Role of biomechanical forces in the natural history of coronary atherosclerosis. Nat Rev Cardiol 2016;13:210-20. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2015.203   DOI