Fractional flow reserve versus angiography guided revascularization for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract Background Recently published randomized controlled trials (RCT) have questioned the utility of Fraction Flow Reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) as compared Angiography Purpose This current analysis aimed compare clinical outcomes associated FFR guided versus standard angiography-guided for CAD using a large number stable and acute syndrome (ACS) Methods We conducted an electronic database search all data RCT that reported on subsequent mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, other interest. Event rates were forest plot odds ratios fixed-effects model assuming interstudy heterogeneity. Results Eleven (n=6052; = 3043, 3027) included final analysis. Mean follow-up period was 1.7 years. In our analysis, angiography alone not any significant reduction overall mortality (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.83–1.47, P=0.47, I2=0), 0.95, 0.63–1.45, P=0.42, 0.96, 0.80–1.14, P=0.17, I2=31%) or infarction 0.99, 0.79–1.23, P=0.33, I2=12%). There also no difference between two groups terms major adverse cerebrovascular event [MACCE] 1.13, 0.90–1.42, P=0.39, I2=5%), [MACE] 0.86, 0.70–1.07, P=0.55, stroke/TIA 1.61, 0.92–2.82, P=0.36, I2=8%) target lesion [TLR] 0.44–1.67, P=0.71, I2=0). Furthermore, sensitivity include only studies ACS which used CABG revascularization. However, there above Conclusion is undergoing FFR-guided Funding Acknowledgement Type funding sources: None.