Abstract
Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is recommended in revascularization guidelines for intermediate lesions. However, recent studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization have reported conflicting results. PubMed and Embase were searched for studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization strategies (angiography-guided, intracoronary imaging-guided, coronary artery bypass grafting). Data were pooled by meta-analysis using random-effects model. 26 studies enrolling 78,897 patients were included. FFR-guided PCI as compared to non-physiology-guided coronary revascularization had lower risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.79 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.99, I(2) = 53%) and myocardial infarction (MI) (OR 0.74 95% CI 0.59-0.93, I(2) = 44.7%). However, no differences between groups were found in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (OR 0.86 95% CI 0.72-1.03, I(2) = 72.3%) and repeat revascularization (OR 1 95% CI 0.82-1.20, I(2) = 43.2%). Among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), FFR-guided PCI as compared to non-physiology-guided revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and MI.