Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Intermediate Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract

Both FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI strategy for intermediate coronary artery disease were associated with favorable outcomes. The FFR-guided PCI reduces the need for revascularization of many of these lesions.

Diagnostic performance of quantitative coronary computed tomography angiography and quantitative coronary angiography to predict hemodynamic significance of intermediate-grade stenoses

“…This is within the range reported in previous studies assessing specifically intermediate-grade CAS on CCA [27,28] and on CCTA [13]. However, our reported prevalence was substantially higher than the rate of 18 % (10/56) reported by Kristensen et al [26] but lower than the rate of 45 % reported by Rossi et al [12].…”

Comparing treatment outcomes of fractional flow reserve-guided and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The FAME study reported favorable outcomes of FFR-guided PCI when compared with conventional angiography guided PCI [11,22]. FFR also reduces the need for revascularization of many of intermediate lesions [31], and is associated with improved health and economic outcomes compared to treatment based on angiography alone [6,32]. As a result, FFR guidance during PCI has received a class 1A recommendation from the European Society of Cardiology [33], and a class IIA recommendation from the American College of Cardiology [34]; however, FFR is still underutilized clinically with <10% of PCI performed in the absence of clinical evidence of ischemia [35,36].…”

Relation of Fractional Flow Reserve After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation to One-Year Outcomes

“…The FFR was measured after intracoronary administration of adenosine (40 g in the right and 80 to 120 g in the left coronary artery) to induce maximum hyperemia, as previously described. 11,12 The lowest FFR value was selected after Ն2 measurements.…”