ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2025
Fractional flow reserve guided percutaneous coronary intervention
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are well-established treatments for multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), a condition where multiple heart arteries are narrowed. A newer approach, fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided PCI, uses a specialized measurement to select which artery blockages to treat, aiming to enhance patient outcomes. Despite its adoption, the comparative effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI
aimTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of FFR -guided PCI compared to CABG in patients with multivessel CAD.
methodsThis meta-analysis followed standard reporting guidelines and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FFR-guided PCI with CABG in patients with multivessel CAD. We searched medical databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from their start to May 2025. We calculated combined risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) to analyze the data.
resultsThree RCTs were analyzed. There was no notable difference in all-cause mortality between FFR-guided PCI and CABG (RR = 1.01, 95%CI: 0.78-1.31,
conclusionFFR-guided PCI and CABG have similar rates of all-cause mortality and stroke in patients with multivessel CAD. However, CABG results in fewer MACEs, myocardial infarctions, and repeat procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.