4.6 Article

Impact of instantaneous wave-free ratio on graft failure after coronary artery bypass graft surgery

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 324, 期 -, 页码 23-29

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.09.046

关键词

Instantaneous wave-free ratio; Coronary artery bypass grafting; And coronary artery disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to assess the impact of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) on graft failure after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The results showed that graft failure rates were significantly higher in vessels with negative iFR (>0.89) compared to those with positive iFR (<0.89).
Background: We aimed to assess an impact of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) on a graft failure after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods and results: A total of 131 coronary arteries from 88 patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography, intracoronary pressure measurements, CABG, and scheduled follow-up coronary computed tomography angiography within one year were investigated. All studied arteries had FFR <0.80. The rate of graft failure was significantly higher in vessels with negative iFR (>0.89) than in those with positive iFR (<0.89) (25.7% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.012). The graft failure rates increased as the preoperative iFR values rose (iFR <0.80, 3.3%; iFR: 0.80-0.84, 5.6%; iFR: 0.85-0.89, 16.0%; iFR: 0.90-0.94, 28.0%; and iFR: 0.95-1.00, 50.0%; p = 0.002). A cut-off value of iFR to predict graft failures was determined as 0.84 by receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 88%, 62%, 25%, 97%, and 66%, respectively. Conclusions: The risk of graft failure becomes higher, as the preoperative iFR increases.The graft failure is significantly more frequent when a bypass graft is anastomosed on vessels with negative iFR than those with positive iFR. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据