RESUMO
Background: The utility of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularisation in the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unclear. Objective: This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of patients following FFR-guided revascularisation for either ACS or stable angina (SA) and in particular focuses on the outcome of those with deferred revascularisation after FFR. Methods: A meta-analysis of existing literature was performed. Outcomes including the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), mortality and unplanned revascularisation were analysed. Results: A review of 937 records yielded 9 studies comparing 5457 patients, which were included in the analyses. Patients with ACS had a higher rate of recurrent MI (OR 1.81, p=0.02) and a strong trend towards more MACE and all-cause mortality compared with patients with SA when treated by an FFR-guided revascularisation strategy. Deferral of invasive therapy on the basis of FFR led to a higher rate of MACE (17.6% vs 7.3 %; p=0.004), recurrent MI (5.3% vs 1.5%, p=0.001) and target vessel revascularisation (16.4% vs 5.6 %; p=0.02) in patients with ACS, and a strong trend towards a higher cardiovascular mortality at follow-up when compared with patients with SA. Conclusion: The event rate in patients with ACS is much higher than SA despite following an FFR-guided revascularisation strategy. Deferring revascularisation does not appear to be as safe for ACS as it is for SA using contemporary FFR cut-offs validated in SA. Refinement of the therapeutic strategy for patients with ACS with multivessel disease is needed to redress the balance.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a feasible alternative treatment to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. The present systematic review aimed to assess the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes of TAVI versus AVR, and meta-analyse standardized clinical endpoints. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted on 9 online databases to identify all relevant studies. Eligible studies had to report on either periprocedural mortality or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to be included for analysis. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 24 studies that reported on comparative clinical outcomes, including three randomized controlled trials and ten matched observational studies involving 7906 patients. Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences in regards to mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or acute renal failure. Patients who underwent TAVI were more likely to experience major vascular complications or arrhythmias requiring permanent pacemaker insertion. Patients who underwent AVR were more likely to experience major bleeding. Eleven analyses from 7 economic studies reported on ICER. Six analyses defined TAVI to be low value, 2 analyses defined TAVI to be intermediate value, and three analyses defined TAVI to be high value. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated no significant differences in regards to mortality or stroke between the two therapeutic procedures. However, the cost-effectiveness and long-term efficacy of TAVI may require further investigation. Technological improvement and increased experience may broaden the clinical indication for TAVI for low-intermediate risk patients in the future.
