| 1. |
- De Bruyne, Bernard, et al.
(författare)
-
Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided PCI for Stable Coronary Artery Disease
- 2014
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - : Massachussetts Medical Society. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 371:13, s. 1208-1217
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that in patients with stable coronary artery disease and stenosis, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed on the basis of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) would be superior to medical therapy.METHODS: In 1220 patients with stable coronary artery disease, we assessed the FFR in all stenoses that were visible on angiography. Patients who had at least one stenosis with an FFR of 0.80 or less were randomly assigned to undergo FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy or to receive medical therapy alone. Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 received medical therapy alone and were included in a registry. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization within 2 years.RESULTS: The rate of the primary end point was significantly lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (8.1% vs. 19.5%; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.57; P<0.001). This reduction was driven by a lower rate of urgent revascularization in the PCI group (4.0% vs. 16.3%; hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.38; P<0.001), with no significant between-group differences in the rates of death and myocardial infarction. Urgent revascularizations that were triggered by myocardial infarction or ischemic changes on electrocardiography were less frequent in the PCI group (3.4% vs. 7.0%, P = 0.01). In a landmark analysis, the rate of death or myocardial infarction from 8 days to 2 years was lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (4.6% vs. 8.0%, P = 0.04). Among registry patients, the rate of the primary end point was 9.0% at 2 years.CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease, FFR-guided PCI, as compared with medical therapy alone, improved the outcome. Patients without ischemia had a favorable outcome with medical therapy alone.
|
|
| 2. |
- Byrne, Robert A., et al.
(författare)
-
Report of a European Society of Cardiology-European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions task force on the evaluation of coronary stents in Europe : executive summary
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 36:38, s. 2608-2620
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The evaluation for European Union market approval of coronary stents falls under the Medical Device Directive that was adopted in 1993. Specific requirements for the assessment of coronary stents are laid out in supplementary advisory documents. In response to a call by the European Commission to make recommendations for a revision of the advisory document on the evaluation of coronary stents (Appendix 1 of MEDDEV 2.7.1), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) established a Task Force to develop an expert advisory report. As basis for its report, the ESC-EAPCI Task Force reviewed existing processes, established a comprehensive list of all coronary drug-eluting stents that have received a CE mark to date, and undertook a systematic review of the literature of all published randomized clinical trials evaluating clinical and angiographic outcomes of coronary artery stents between 2002 and 2013. Based on these data, the TF provided recommendations to inform a new regulatory process for coronary stents. The main recommendations of the task force include implementation of a standardized non-clinical assessment of stents and a novel clinical evaluation pathway for market approval. The two-stage clinical evaluation plan includes recommendation for an initial pre-market trial with objective performance criteria (OPC) benchmarking using invasive imaging follow-up leading to conditional CE-mark approval and a subsequent mandatory, large-scale randomized trial with clinical endpoint evaluation leading to unconditional CE-mark. The data analysis from the systematic review of the Task Force may provide a basis for determination of OPC for use in future studies. This paper represents an executive summary of the Task Force's report.
|
|
