Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 14, 2025

Interventional Diagnostic Procedure: A Practical Guide for the Assessment of Coronary Vascular Function
Published on: March 15, 2022
FFR-guided versus coronary angiogram-guided CABG: A review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled
Dhayan Timbadia1,2, Ashlynn Ler2,3, Faizus Sazzad2,4,5
1Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Insights
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) shows no significant clinical outcome differences compared to standard coronary angiography (CAG) guided CABG. Current evidence does not support routine FFR use before CABG.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
- Health Outcomes Research
Background:
- Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is established for percutaneous coronary intervention but its role in coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is unclear.
- Comparing FFR-guided CABG with standard coronary angiography (CAG)-guided CABG is crucial for optimizing surgical decision-making.
- Existing evidence requires synthesis to guide clinical practice regarding FFR use in CABG.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare clinical outcomes of FFR-guided CABG versus CAG-guided CABG.
- To evaluate the impact of FFR assessment on graft patency rates after CABG.
- To determine if FFR guidance offers advantages over conventional CAG guidance in CABG patients.
Main Methods:
- A meta-analysis of prospectively randomized controlled trials (PRCTs) was conducted following PRISMA guidelines.
- Included two PRCTs (FARGO and GRAFFITI trials) with data from 269 patients and 6-12 month follow-up.
- Assessed primary endpoints including death, MACCE, revascularization, and myocardial infarction, and secondary endpoints of graft patency.
Main Results:
- No significant differences were observed between FFR-guided and CAG-guided CABG groups for overall death, MACCE, target vessel revascularization, or spontaneous myocardial infarction.
- Graft patency rates, including both arterial and venous grafts, were similar between the two groups.
- The meta-analysis of the FARGO and GRAFFITI trials indicated comparable clinical outcomes and graft patency up to one year post-surgery.
Conclusions:
- Current prospectively randomized controlled trials provide insufficient evidence to advocate for the routine use of FFR in CABG.
- FFR-guided CABG and CAG-guided CABG demonstrate similar short-term clinical results and graft patency.
- Further research may be needed to definitively establish the role, if any, of FFR in guiding CABG procedures.
Background:
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a well-established method for the evaluation of coronary artery stenosis before percutaneous coronary intervention. However, whether FFR assessment should be routinely used before coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) remains unclear. A meta-analysis of prospectively randomized controlled trials (PRCTs) was carried out to compare the outcomes of FFR-guided CABG vs coronary angiography (CAG)-guided CABG.
Method:
The meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two PRCTs (the FARGO and GRAFFITI trials) were found and included reporting data on 269 patients with 6 and 12 month follow-up. Primary endpoints were rates of overall death, MACCE, target vessel revascularization, and spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary endpoints were overall graft patency and patency of arterial and venous grafts.
Results:
There were no significant differences between the FFR-guided and CAG-guided groups in the rates of overall death, MACCE, target vessel revascularization, spontaneous MI and graft patency. Meta-analysis of FARGO and GRAFFITI PRCTs showed that FFR-guided CABG and CAG-guided CABG produced similar clinical outcomes with similar graft patency rates up to a year postoperatively.
Conclusion:
Currently available PRCTs showes no sufficient evidence to support the use FFR in CABG.
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Cardiac Catheterization III: Left Heart Catheterization
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...

