Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 16, 2026

A Murine Model of Stent Implantation in the Carotid Artery for the Study of Restenosis
Published on: May 14, 2013
FFR-guided multivessel stenting reduces urgent revascularization compared with infarct-related artery only stenting
Ankur Gupta1, Navkaranbir S Bajaj1, Pankaj Arora2
1Heart and Vascular Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Insights
Fractional flow reserve-guided (FFR) multivessel stenting significantly reduces repeat revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. This strategy also lowers urgent revascularization rates, though its impact on reinfarction requires further study.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Medical Devices
Background:
- ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel disease presents treatment challenges.
- Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided multivessel stenting has shown superiority over infarct-related artery (IRA)-only stenting.
- Previous trials were underpowered to assess urgent revascularization or reinfarction outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
- To evaluate the efficacy of FFR-guided multivessel stenting versus IRA-only stenting in STEMI patients.
- To assess the impact on death, reinfarction, and urgent/non-urgent repeat revascularization.
Main Methods:
- Searched major databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science) for relevant RCTs.
- Included 2 RCTs comparing FFR-guided multivessel stenting with IRA-only stenting in STEMI patients.
- Pooled risk ratios (RR) using a random-effects model to determine outcomes.
Main Results:
- FFR-guided multivessel stenting significantly reduced the composite of death, reinfarction, or revascularization (RR: 0.49).
- This reduction was primarily driven by decreased urgent (RR: 0.41) and non-urgent (RR: 0.31) repeat revascularization.
- While reinfarction rates were lower with FFR guidance, the difference was not statistically significant (RR: 0.71).
Conclusions:
- FFR-guided multivessel stenting is effective in reducing overall and urgent repeat revascularization in STEMI patients.
- The strategy demonstrates a favorable trend towards reduced reinfarction.
- Larger trials are needed to definitively assess the effect of FFR-guided stenting on reinfarction rates.
Background:
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown fractional flow reserve-guided (FFR) multivessel stenting to be superior to infarct-related artery (IRA) only stenting in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. This effect was mainly driven by a reduction in overall repeat revascularization. However, the ability to assess the effect of this strategy on urgent revascularization or reinfarction was underpowered in individual trials.
Methods:
We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science for RCTs of FFR-guided multivessel stenting versus IRA-only stenting in STEMI with multivessel disease. The outcomes of interest were death, reinfarction, urgent, and non-urgent repeat revascularization. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.
Results:
After review of 786 citations, 2 RCTs were included. The pooled results demonstrated a significant reduction in the composite of death, reinfarction, or revascularization in the FFR-guided multivessel stenting group versus IRA-only stenting group (RR [95%, Confidence Interval]: 0.49 [0.33-0.72], p<0.001). This risk reduction was driven mainly by a reduction in repeat revascularization, both urgent (0.41 [0.24-0.71], p=0.002) and non-urgent revascularization (0.31 [0.19-0.50], p<0.001). Pooled RR for reinfarction was lower in the FFR-guided strategy, but was not statistically significant (0.71[0.39-1.31], p=0.28).
Conclusions:
This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that a strategy of FFR-guided multivessel stenting in STEMI patients reduces not only overall repeat revascularization but also urgent revascularization. The effect on reinfarction needs to be evaluated in larger trials.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Atherosclerosis III: Management
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies

