One‑year clinical outcome of angiography, fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave‑free ratio guided percutaneous coronary intervention: A PRISMA‑compliant meta‑analysis

The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcome of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent a revascularization using conventional coronary angiography or a physiologically guided revascularization with Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR). Furthermore, outcomes in FFR guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and instantaneous wave‑free ratio (iFR) guided PCI were compared. The analysis was performed for reported outcomes at a 1‑year follow‑up. After searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science for suitable publications, a total of 15,880 subjects were included. Comparing angiography guided and FFR guided PCI showed no significant difference in major adverse cardiac events [odds ratio (OR), 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.59‑1.04; P=0.09; I²=73%], death from any cause (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.46‑1.18; P=0.20; I²=74%), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81‑1.07; P=0.31; I²=0%) or unplanned revascularization (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.41‑1.23; P=0.22; I²=79%). In addition, no significant difference could be found between iFR and FFR guided PCI for major adverse cardiac events (OR, 0.97; 95% CI; 0.76‑1.23; P=0.81; I²=0%), death from any cause (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40‑1.11; P=0.12; I²=0%), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56‑1.24; P=0.37) or unplanned revascularization (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.85‑1.58; P=0.34; I²=16%). Overall, there was a tendency towards better outcomes of FFR in all four clinical endpoints compared with angiography guiding of PCI, and furthermore iFR showed no significant inferiority when compared to FFR in said clinical endpoints. When conducting a network meta‑analysis, the results confirmed a non‑inferiority of iFR compared to angiography guided revascularization.