血流储备分数与血管内超声对冠状动脉狭窄70%的心绞痛患者治疗方案选择的影响

目的 比较血流储备分数(FFR)与血管内超声(IVUS)对冠状动脉(下称冠脉)狭窄70%的心绞痛患者治疗方案选择的指导价值。方法 选择2019年12月至2022年4月杭州市萧山区第一人民医院心内科行冠脉造影显示狭窄70%的稳定型心绞痛患者80例,其中各有30例分别行IVUS(IVUS组)和FFR(FFR组)检查,20例患者仅予保守治疗(对照组)。当IVUS测得最小管腔面积≤4 mm²、斑块负荷≥70%或FFR值≤0.8时行经皮冠脉介入治疗(PCI)。所有患者行双重抗血小板、调脂、β受体阻滞剂治疗,随访9个月,比较各组冠脉病变分布情况,心绞痛、心肌梗死、血运重建、心源性死亡等主要不良心血管事件(MACE)发生率。结果 3组患者冠脉病变分布比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。IVUS组行PCI患者占比多于FFR组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),IVUS组和FFR组MACE发生率相似,均低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论 IVUS和FFR均可指导冠脉狭窄为70%的心绞痛患者治疗方案选择。     

血流储备分数指导下分期PCI干预非梗死相关动脉对STEMI患者短期预后的影响

目的:探讨血流储备分数(FFR)指导下分期行经皮冠状动脉(冠脉)介入术(PCI)干预非梗死相关动脉(non-IRA)对ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者预后的影响。方法:将100例拟分期PCI干预non-IRA的STEMI患者随机分为FFR指导下功能性血运重建组(FFR组)和单纯冠脉造影指导下血运重建组(CAG组),各50例。FFR组对狭窄70%～90%的non-IRA行FFR检查,FFR≤0.80为PCI干预的指证;CAG组对狭窄≥70%的non-IRA仅冠脉造影指导下行PCI。比较2组PCI资料和住院期间主要并发症,均术后随访12个月,比较2组术后1个月和12个月时主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的发生率。结果:FFR组和CAG组比较,人均支架植入量[(1.5±0.5)枚∶(2.6±1.0)枚,P≤0.01]和支架植入率[84.2%∶100%,P=0.003]显著降低;2组的PCI时间、造影剂剂量、住院时间、住院费用和住院期间主要并发症均无统计学差异;术后1个月FFR组未增加MACE事件发生率[1例(2%)∶3例(6%),P=0.617];术后12个月FFR组MACE事件[2例(4.08%)∶8例(16.70%),P=0.042]显著降低。结论:对STEMI多支血管病变患者在FFR指导下non-IRA分期功能性血运重建可减少不必要的PCI干预,降低术后12个月的MACE事件发生率。     

冠状动脉血流储备分数水平与冠心病患者预后的关系

目的:观察在冠心病诊疗中冠状动脉血流储备分数(FFR)对冠心病患者预后的指导价值。方法:本研究为前瞻性、观察性研究。研究纳入389例于北京安贞医院行冠状动脉造影及FFR检测的患者,根据治疗方式和FFR值分为两组:非FFR指导组(FFR≤0.80且药物治疗,n=62)和FFR值指导组(根据FFR值选择标准治疗策略,n=327),后者进一步分为两个亚组:FFR指导介入亚组(FFR≤0.80且PCI,n=134);FFR指导药物亚组(FFR0.80且药物治疗,n=193)。结果:中位随访时间为24.5个月,非FFR指导组较FFR值指导组主要临床终点发生率,差异无统计学意义(P=0.502),再次血运重建发生率有升高的趋势(P=0.081)。与FFR指导药物亚组比较,FFR指导介入亚组因再发心绞痛再次住院发生率较高(P=0.035),主要不良心血管病事件发生率显著升高(P=0.026)。Kaplan-Meier曲线显示类似结果。本项研究对489支血管进行了FFR测定,随访过程中,有25支检测血管发生了血运重建,4支检测血管为梗死相关血管。行FFR检测的血管中,FFR指导组中的FFR指导药物亚组、FFR指导介入亚组的患者的血运重建率分别是7.6%, 10.6%;非FFR指导治疗组中,FFR值介于0.75～0.8之间和0.75的患者血运重建率分别是11.1%和22.6%;与FFR指导药物亚组相比,非FFR指导组中FFR0.75的患者的再次血运重建率发生率有升高的趋势(P=0.064)。结论:FFR值检测在冠心病诊疗的现实世界中对预后具有重要的指导意义。     

FFR对冠状动脉分叉病变PCI治疗策略的影响

【】 目的 评价血流储备分数(FFR)用于指导经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗分叉病变的临床价值。方法 选取预计单支架植入、主支植入支架后发现对分支开口有不同程度的影响的患者96例,随机分为两组,FFR指导的PCI组(FFR组)50例,定量冠状动脉照影(QCA)指导的PCI组(对照组)46例。FFR组将FFR≤0.75作为PCI的标准,对照组将QCA测量的血管直径狭窄率(DS)≥75%作为PCI的标准。观察手术即刻指标及预后疗效。结果 FFR组分支植入支架例数较对照组明显减少(18% vs. 37%,P=0.037),手术时间明显缩短(1.5±0.4h vs. 2.0±0.5h,P=0.001),FFR组无手术相关并发症,对照组有1例夹层、1例慢血流和1例支架植入不成功。发现FFR组FFR≤0.75的DS<75%的例数占6%(3/50),FFR>0.75的DS≥75%的例数占32%(16/50)。随访1.3±0.5年,两组不良心血管事件(MACE)(6% vs. 13%,P>0.05)和再发心绞痛(10.0% vs.15.2%,P>0.05)统计学无明显差异。结论 FFR优于CAG指导分叉病变的PCI治疗,减少不必要的支架植入,减少手术相关的并发症。     

血流储备分数指导经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术中非罪犯中度狭窄血管治疗策略的研究

目的：通过测量血流储备分数（FFR）,决定是否对不稳定型心绞痛多支血管病变患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）术中非罪犯中度狭窄血管行介入治疗,并观察临床转归。方法本研究入选不稳定型心绞痛多支血管病变患者,首先对已明确的罪犯血管行PCI治疗后,针对非罪犯中度狭窄血管按照单双号分为对照组（非支架组）和观察组（FFR指导下行PCI组）。其中,观察组FFR＜0.8的患者对中度狭窄血管行PCI治疗,术后再次行FFR检测,确保FFR≥0.95。观察终点事件为全因死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、再次血运重建发生率以及心绞痛临床表现。结果共纳入71例患者,对照组35例;观察组36例,其中FFR≥0.8的患者23例,FFR＜0.8的患者13例。两组患者无主要终点事件和再次血运重建生存率分别比较,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;无全因死亡与非致死性心肌梗死生存率分别比较,差异均无统计学意义。针对靶血管不良事件的统计学分析显示,两组再次血运重建（观察组5.6%,对照组31.4%）及非致死性心肌梗死（观察组5.6%,对照组28.6%）发生率分别比较,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论不稳定型心绞痛患者中,使用压力导丝测出的FFR值来决定是否对非罪犯中度病变进行血运重建是安全的。FFR结合冠状动脉造影指导PCI治疗较单纯冠状动脉造影指导PCI的不良事件发生率显著减少,尤其在再次血运重建方面,并且心绞痛临床表现显著缓解。     

血流储备分数指导下ST段抬高型心肌梗死多支血管病变患者非梗死相关血管分期完全血运重建的临床研究

目的评估血流储备分数(FFR)在急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)多支血管病变患者非梗死相关血管(non-IRA)分期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)完全血运重建中的临床价值。方法选取陕西中医药大学第二附属医院心血管内科2015年6月至2016年5月已成功行PCI开通梗死相关血管(IRA),拟分期PCI治疗(间隔≥7 d)non-IRA的STEMI多支血管病变患者90例,按随机数字表法分为FFR指导下完全血运重建组(FFR组)45例和冠状动脉造影指导下完全血运重建组(CAG组)45例。FFR组狭窄>90%的non-IRA病变直接行PCI治疗,对狭窄70%~90%的病变行FFR检查,仅对FFR<0.80的non-IRA行PCI治疗;CAG组对狭窄≥70%的non-IRA依据术者经验行PCI治疗,处理的靶血管参照血管直径≥2.5 mm。比较两组PCI时间、支架置入数量、造影剂用量、住院时间、住院费用和围术期并发症,随访患者术后6个月主要不良心脑血管事件发生情况。结果 FFR组支架置入数量[(1.68±0.75)枚比(2.83±0.54)枚,t=7.662,P<0.001]和造影剂用量[(164.8±35.7)ml比(195.0±41.9)ml,t=4.271,P=0.04]均明显少于CAG组;术后随访6个月,FFR组再次血运重建率显著低于CAG组(4.7%比19.5%,P=0.04),两组主要不良心脑血管事件发生率差异无统计学意义(均为P>0.05)。结论 STEMI多支血管病变患者在FFR指导下对non-IRA行分期完全血运重建可减少支架置入数量、造影剂用量及术后6个月再次血运重建率。     

FFR指导下功能性完全血运重建对NSTEMI并发多支病变患者短期预后影响

目的 评价血流储备分数（FFR）指导下功能性完全血运重建对非ST段抬高型心肌梗死（NSTEMI）并发多支病变患者短期预后的影响。方法 选取西京医院心血管内科95例NSTEMI并发多支病变患者为功能性完全血运重建组(冠脉造影狭窄>90%的病变直接行PCI治疗,对狭窄70%~90%的病变行FFR检查,FFR<0.75为PCI治疗的指征),同时期冠脉造影指导下完全血运重建的患者为对照(解剖学完全血运重运组)组（狭窄≥70%且直径>2.5 mm的病变常规行PCI治疗）。患者随访12个月,比较两组患者主要不良心血管事件（MACE）及再发心绞痛、因冠心病再住院发生情况和左室射血分数(LVEF)的变化。结果 与对照组比较,功能性完全血运重建组再发心绞痛〔9% vs. 30%,P<0.01〕、因冠心病再住院〔5% vs. 19%,P<0.01〕及MACE〔9% vs. 22%,P<0.05〕发生率均显著降低;两组LVEF均较术前增加〔(60±7)% vs.(56±8)%〕,功能性完全血运重建组增加显著(均P<0.05)。结论 FFR指导下功能性完全血运重建能降低患者12个月MACE发生率,减少再发心绞痛、因冠心病再住院次数,改善患者左心功能,患者近期获益明显。     

血流储备分数在冠状动脉临界病变介入治疗中的指导作用

目的探讨血流储备分数(FFR)在冠脉临界病变介入治疗中的指导作用。方法选择该院行冠状动脉造影(CAG)明确狭窄程度为70%~90%且拟行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的患者98例,依据治疗方法分为中观察组(51例)和对照组(47例)。观察组每处病变均行FFR测定,仅在FFR≤0.80处行支架植入,对照组常规CAG检查后行PCI。记录两组术中平均支架植入数量、造影剂使用量和手术时间,术后随访12个月统计不良心血管事件发生情况。结果观察组平均支架植入数量、造影剂使用量和手术时间均低于对照组(P<0.05)。术后12个月两组再发心绞痛、心肌梗死、再次血运重建和心源性死亡发生率差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对于冠状动脉临界病变,FFR为选择性进行PCI治疗提供参考,能够减少平均支架植入数量、造影剂使用量和手术时间,节省医疗费用,减少了支架植入和造影剂使用相关并发症的发生风险。     

FFR阳性值小于0.71冠心病患者介入治疗的预后

目的评估冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病(冠心病)介入治疗中血流储备分数(FFR)小于0.71患者的预后。方法纳入于北京大学首钢医院行介入治疗且FFR测定≤0.8的60例冠心病患者。根据FFR值分为两组:试验组(FFR值≤0.71),24例;对照组(0.71FFR值≤0.8),36例。两组患者均给予经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI),随访1年,比较两组之间主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的发生率。结果两组患者基础资料无差异,在冠状动脉介入治疗情况以及术后用药情况方面无差异(P0.05),术后1年内再次血运重建、急性心肌梗死、死亡、再发心绞痛等方面无明显差异(P0.05),而试验组患者(37.5%)在总的主要不良心血管事件(MACE)发生率高于对照组(8.3%),差异具有显著统计学意义(P0.01)。结论冠心病患者介入治疗中FFR≤0.71的患者预后更差。     

冠状动脉血流储备分数测定指导下的冠状动脉临界病变介入治疗疗效观察

目的评价冠状动脉血流储备分数（FFR）指导下的冠状动脉临界病变（直径狭窄介于50%～70%）介入治疗疗效。方法连续入选我院2012年1月至2012年12月期间经冠状动脉造影（CAG）证实存在单支冠状动脉临界病变的患者76例,并行FFR测定,其中48例病变血管FFR≥0.75的患者不行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）而只给予最佳药物治疗（OMT组）,28例病变血管FFR＜0.75的患者行PCI并给予最佳药物治疗（PCI＋OMT组）。连续随访12个月后,比较两组患者主要心脏不良事件（MACE）的发生率以及西雅图心绞痛量表（SAQ）得分。结果OMT组MACE的发生率与PCI＋OMT组比较差异无统计学意义。与基线水平相比,两组患者术后12个月SAQ的5项分数均有提高（P<0.05）,两组患者躯体活动受限程度、心绞痛稳定状态、心绞痛发作频率、疾病认识程度方面无明显改善,而治疗满意程度在OMT组优于PCI＋OMT组（P<0.05）。结论FFR能够可靠地预测冠状动脉临界病变患者的心肌缺血风险并指导治疗决策,可以避免不必要的PCI,改善患者的机体功能及生活质量。     

血管内超声指导经皮冠状动脉介入治疗对非ST段抬高型急性冠脉综合征临界病变患者预后的影响

目的观察血管内超声(IVUS)指导经皮冠状动脉介入(PCI)治疗对非ST段抬高型急性冠脉综合征(NSTE-ACS)临界病变患者临床预后的影响。方法入选2016年6月至2017年1月陕西省第四人民医院心血管内科冠状动脉造影(CAG)提示可行PCI术的NSTE-ACS临界病变患者100例,随机数字表法分为IVUS组和血流储备分数(FFR)组各50例,术后随访12个月,比较2组患者主要不良心血管事件(MACEs)发生情况。结果 IVUS组和FFR组患者病变血管直径[(3.5±0.7)vs(3.0±0.5)mm]、狭窄程度[(62.6±5.0)%vs(57.2±7.5)%]、病变长度[(20.2±8.8)vs(23.5±10.7)mm]、PCI相关并发症发生率[8.0%(4/50)vs 4.0%(2/50)]等差异无统计学意义(P0.05);相比FFR组患者,IVUS组患者支架植入率较高[56.0%(28/50)vs 38.0%(19/50)],但差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后随访12个月MACEs发生率差异无统计学意义[18.8%(9/48)vs 14.3%(7/49),P=0.55]。结论对于NSTE-ACS临界病变患者,IVUS指导血运重建治疗的短期临床预后不劣于FFR指导。     

冠状动脉CT血管成像狭窄评分定量评估缺血相关病变的临床价值

目的:分析冠状动脉CT血管成像狭窄评分(CCTA-SS)在定量评估缺血相关病变中的临床价值.方法:回顾性分析经冠状动脉CT血管成像(CCTA)诊断为左前降支单支病变的冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病(冠心病)疑似患者的临床资料.患者入院1周内接受有创冠状动脉造影(ICA)及血流储备分数(FFR)检查,分析影像特征并计算CCTA...     

急性冠脉综合征行PCI患者残粒脂蛋白-胆固醇水平与主要不良心血管事件的相关性研究

目的 研究急性冠脉综合征(ACS)行急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)患者残粒脂蛋白-胆固醇(RLP-C)水平与主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的关系.方法 选择在江苏省苏北人民医院心脏科住院的ACS并行急诊PCI患者143例为研究对象,入院时检测其RLP-C水平,依据RLP-C定标值将患者分为高水平组(n=42)及低水...     

The prognostic value of combined intracoronary pressure and blood flow velocity measurements after deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention

Objectives : We evaluated deferral of PCI of intermediate coronary lesions (IL) using fractional (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR) hyperemic stenosis resistance index (HSR) in patients with a negative or nondiagnostic and noninvasive stress tests. Background : Outcome after deferral of PCI of IL with discordant results between FFR and CFR is unknown. Methods : PCI was deferred in 186 IL (mean diameter stenosis: 52%). Patients were divided according to the results of FFR and CFR in group A; FFR ≥ 0.75 and CFR ≥ 2.0 (n = 129), group B; FFR ≥ 0.75 and CFR 2.0 (n = 28), group C; FFR 0.75 and CFR ≥ 2.0 (n = 23) and group D; FFR 0.75 and CFR 2.0 (n = 6). Patients were followed for one year to document major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results : Nineteen MACEs (0 deaths, 4 myocardial infarctions, 1 CABG, and 14 PCIs) occurred during a follow up of 323 ± 88 days. MACE rate was lowest (4.7%) when FFR, CFR, and HSR were normal. A higher MACE rate was observed when concordant abnormal (group D) or discordant results between FFR and CFR (group B and C) were compared to concordant normal values (group A, 33.3% vs. 19.7% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.008). Multivariate regression analysis showed a higher predictive power for HSR than for FFR and CFR. Conclusions : Abnormal FFR or abnormal CFR was documented in 31% of intermediate coronary lesions. Deferral of PCI in this group was associated with a high MACE rate, which underscores the rationale of combined pressure and flow measurements providing a stenosis resistance index that is better suited for clinical decision making in these lesions. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Long-term clinical outcomes after deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention of intermediate coronary stenoses based on coronary pressure-derived fractional flow reserve

Coronary pressure-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been used to evaluate functional severity of coronary artery stenoses. The cut-off point of 0.75 was considered to be the indication for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In this study, we examined the prognosis of patients in whom PCI was deferred because the lesion was not significant by FFR (≥0.75). We measured FFR of 44 patients (50 lesions with angiographically intermediate stenoses by pressure wire between 2002 and 2009. Out of 44 patients (50 lesions), functionally non-significant stenoses with FFR≥0.75 were 29 patients (33 lesions) and PCI was deferred. In the remaining 15 patients (17 lesions), FFR was <0.75 and PCI was performed. Patients were followed up for an average period of 53 months with endpoints of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, acute coronary syndrome, PCI, and coronary artery bypass grafting). The rate of MACE was 2/29 (6.9%) in patients with FFR≥0.75 and 2/15 (13.3%) in those with FFR<0.75, and it was not statistically different between the two groups. Since long-term clinical outcomes after deferral of PCI of intermediate coronary stenoses based on FFR were excellent (annual event rate 1.6%/year), FFR is a useful index to judge the indication of PCI and risk-stratify patients for MACE.     

前壁STEMI患者不同再灌注策略对心功能及冠状动脉微循环影响的研究

目的比较不同再灌注策略对前壁急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者心功能、冠状动脉(冠脉)微循环的相关影响。方法纳入2017年10月至2019年10月于河北省人民医院心脏中心确诊为急性前壁STEMI、符合入选标准的107例患者。依据再灌注策略的不同,分为溶栓成功择期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)组13例、溶栓失败补救PCI组12例、直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗组(PPCI组)82例。收集所有患者基线临床资料,比较三组再灌注后微循环相关指标、再灌注后7 d及随访90 d心功能相关指标及住院期间及再灌注后90 d主要心脏不良事件(MACEs)发生率、再灌注后90 d出血事件发生率。结果三组患者总缺血时间PPCI组<溶栓成功择期PCI组<溶栓失败补救PCI组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。再灌注后TIMI血流3级比例、TMPG 3级比例PPCI组高于溶栓失败补救PCI组和溶栓成功择期PCI组,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。再灌注后CTFC水平PPCI组低于溶栓成功择期PCI组和溶栓失败补救PCI组,差异有统计学意义(P=0.001)。再灌注后90 d左室射血分数(LVEF)水平明显改善,PPCI组高于溶栓成功择期PCI组和溶栓失败补救PCI组,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.016)。再灌注后9 d三组患者在恶性心律失常、严重心力衰竭、再发心肌梗死等MACEs发生率上差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05),PPCI组MACEs发生率均低于其他两组。三组患者再灌注后90 d出血事件发生率无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论PPCI可有效改善前壁STEMI患者术后冠脉血流水平及心肌微循环灌注水平且可改善心功能、降低MACEs发生率。     

Percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery in multivessel disease? A tailored approach based on coronary pressure measurement

The optimal revascularization strategy, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term outcomes after selective PCI of only hemodynamically significant lesions (fractional flow reserve, or FFR < 0.75) to CABG of all stenoses in patients with MVD. In 150 patients with MVD referred for CABG, FFR was determined in 381 coronary arteries considered for bypass grafting. If the FFR was less than 0.75 in three vessels or in two vessels including the proximal left anterior descending (LAD) artery, CABG was performed (CABG group). If only one or two vessels were physiologically significant (not including the proximal LAD), PCI of those lesions was performed (PCI group). Of the 150 patients, 87 fulfilled the criteria for CABG and 63 for PCI. There were no significant differences in the angiographic or other baseline characteristics between the two groups. At 2-year follow-up, no differences were seen in adverse events, including repeat revascularization (event-free survival 74% in the CABG group and 72% in the PCI group). A similar number of patients were free from angina (84% in the CABG group and 82% in the PCI group). Importantly, the results in both groups were as good as the surgical groups in previous studies comparing PCI and CABG in MVD. In patients with multivessel disease, PCI in those with one or two hemodynamically significant lesions as identified by an FFR < 0.75 yields a similar favorable outcome as CABG in those with three or more culprit lesions despite a similar angiographic extent of disease.     

依洛尤单抗对急性冠状动脉综合征患者经皮冠状动脉介入术后不良心血管事件的影响

目的:探讨在他汀类药物应用基础上短期内使用依洛尤单抗能否降低急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)术后主要不良心血管事件(MACEs)的发生风险。方法:回顾性分析2019年1月—2019年10月于同济大学附属第十人民医院CCU收治的128例ACS患者为研究对象,根据是否使用依洛尤单抗分为试验组(41例)和对照组(87例),收集并比较两组患者人口统计学信息、实验室检查、基本临床信息、超声心动图结果、冠状动脉造影结果、基线血脂水平和PCI术后1个月血脂水平。对所有患者进行6个月随访,比较两组患者6个月MACEs发生情况,采用Kaplan-Meier生存分析法比较两组患者6个月随访期间MACEs和再发心肌梗死累积发生率。结果:试验组患者PCI术后1个月低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)水平显著低于对照组[0.83(0.54,1.54)mmol/L∶1.71(0.98,2.30)mmol/L,P=0.004]。经过6个月随访,试验组5例(12.2%)发生MACEs,对照组13例(14.9%)发生MACEs,两组患者在MACEs、死亡、卒中、靶血管再灌注等方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);其中试验组再发心肌梗死0例,对照组再发心肌梗死9例(10.3%),差异有统计学意义(P=0.027)。Kaplan-Meier生存分析显示两组患者累积再发心肌梗死发生率差异有统计学意义(Log-Rank检验P=0.039)。结论:ACS患者在他汀类药物应用基础上短期内使用依洛尤单抗能有效地降低LDL-C水平,同时能降低ACS患者PCI术后6个月再发心肌梗死风险。     

Measurement of fractional flow reserve in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease and borderline lesions prevents unnecessary revascularisation procedures

BACKGROUND: Patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) are selected for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) or surgical revascularisation. The appropriateness of "ad hoc" PCI of borderline lesions (<70% of lumen diameter) in patients with a multi-vessel CAD has not been proven. However, delayed PCI of another lesion and gaining additional information from non-invasive tests is not a widely accepted strategy. When left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery is one of the affected vessels, selection for surgical revascularisation is most likely. AIM: To assess long-term outcome in patients with multi-vessel CAD and borderline lesions, including LAD, in whom fractional flow reserve (FFR) in all affected vessels was measured and used for selection for PCI or conservative treatment. METHODS: The study group consisted of 16 patients with stable angina (11 males, mean age 60+/-9 years) with 34 lesions localised in the main epicardial coronary arteries [LAD / left main (LM) / right coronary artery (RCA) / intermediate branch (IB) / circumflex artery (Cx) - 15/1/5/5/8] of which at least two were borderline stenoses. Each lesion underwent FFR measurement. "Ad hoc" PCI was performed when FFR was <0.75, and conservative therapy was instituted when FFR was >0.75. RESULTS: Of 34 lesions, in 8 (23%) the FFR value was <0.75 and these lesions were treated with PCI (LAD/IB/Cx - 3/2/3). In the remaining 26 (77%) lesions, FFR was >0.75 and conservative therapy was instituted. During the mean follow-up of 15+/-6 months (range 6-28 months, median 15 months) in 8 of 9 conservatively treated patients no aggravation of anginal symptoms nor other coronary events were observed. One patient developed acute myocardial infarction due to thrombus occluding a borderline LAD lesion. Of 8 lesions treated with PCI (baseline FFR = 0.63+/-0.10 vs post-PCI FFR = 0.92+/-0.08, p=0.0002), in one case an in-stent restenosis in LAD occurred 9 months after PCI. Of a total of 26 lesions which were conservatively treated (mean FFR 0.91+/-0.05), in 2 (7.7%) the progression of CAD was noted. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multi-vessel CAD and borderline lesions, FFR measurement identifies those, who can be treated conservatively with a good long-term outcome, and prevents unnecessary PCI.     

Coronary pressure measurement based decision making for percutaneous coronary intervention

The fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a simple, reliable, and reproducible physiologic index of lesion severity. In patients with intermediate stenosis, FFR≥0.75 can be used to safely defer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and patients with FFR≥0.75 have a very low cardiac event rate. Coronary pressure measurement can determine which lesion should be treated with PCI in patients with tandem lesions, and PCI on the basis of FFR has been demonstrated to result in an acceptably low repeat PCI rate. FFR can identify patients with equivocal left main coronary artery disease who benefit from coronary bypass surgery. Coronary pressure measurement distinguishes patients with an abrupt pressure drop pattern from those with a gradual pressure drop pattern, and the former group of patients benefit from PCI. Coronary pressure measurement is clinically useful in evaluating sufficient recruitable coronary collateral blood flow for prevention of ischemia, which affects future cardiac events. FFR is useful for the prediction of restenosis after PCI. As an end-point of PCI, FFR ≥0.95 and ≥0.90 would be appropriate for coronary stenting and coronary angioplasty, respectively. In summary, if you encounter a coronary stenosis in doubt you should measure pressure rather than dilate it.