English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Clinical use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been rapidly increasing, but outcomes after FFR-based coronary intervention in Japanese daily clinical practice have not been well investigated.Methods and Results:The prospective multicenter cardiovascular intervention therapeutics registry (CVIT)-DEFER enrolled consecutive patients for whom FFR measurement was clinically indicated. This study comprised 3,857 vessels in 3,272 patients. Lesions were categorized into 4 groups according to FFR result and revascularization strategy: group 1: FFR &gt;0.8, and deferral of PCI (n=1992); group 2: FFR &gt;0.8, then PCI (n=230); group 3: FFR ≤0.8, and deferral of PCI (n=506); and group 4: FFR ≤0.8, then PCI (n=1,129). The event rate for deferred lesions was significantly low compared with that for PCI lesions (3.5% vs. 6.6%; P&lt;0.05). Vessel-related events occurred in 62 (3.1%), 11 (4.8%), 25 (4.9%), and 79 (7.0%) patients in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. PCI for lesions in which FFR was &gt;0.8 (group 2) showed no improvement in the event rate compared with a defer-strategy. On the other hand, deferred lesions with lower FFR values had a higher risk of vessel-related events.

One-Year Outcome of Fractional Flow Reserve-Based Coronary Intervention in Japanese Daily Practice ― CVIT-DEFER Registry ―