Comparison among various physiology and angiography-guided strategies for deferring percutaneous coronary intervention: A network meta-analysis.

Overview

abstract

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: It is unclear whether coronary physiology or coronary angiography (CA)-guided strategy is the more preferable approach for deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy of various PCI strategies through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS/MATERIALS: We searched multiple databases for RCTs investigating the impact of the following strategies for the purpose of determining whether or not to defer PCI: fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, quantitative flow ratio (QFR), and CA. We conducted a network meta-analysis for trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis. We performed a subgroup analysis for those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). RESULTS: Our search identified 12 eligible RCTs including a total of 13,177 patients. QFR-guided PCI was associated with reduced MACE, MI, and TLR compared with CA-guided PCI (relative risk (RR) 0.68; 95 % confidence interval (CI] [0.49 to 0.94], RR 0.58; 95 % CI [0.36 to 0.96], and RR 0.58; 95 % CI [0.38 to 0.91], respectively). There were no significant differences in any pairs for all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or stent thrombosis. QFR was ranked the best in most outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of the ACS cohort, there were no significant differences in MACE between any comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: QFR was associated with reduced MACE, MI, and TLR compared with CA, and ranked the best in most outcomes. However, this was not applied in the ACS cohort.