Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 29, 2025

Catheter-based Endovascular Angioplasty for Fibrosing Mediastinitis-associated Pulmonary Vein Stenosis
Published on: August 26, 2025
FFR- Versus Angiography-Guided Revascularization for Nonculprit Stenosis in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: A Network
Ayman Elbadawi1, Alexander T Dang2, Mohamed Hamed3
1Division of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Insights
Complete revascularization (CR) guided by either angiography or fractional flow reserve (FFR) reduces adverse events in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease. FFR-guided CR offers no significant advantage over angiography-guided CR.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- The optimal strategy for revascularizing nonculprit lesions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease is not well-established.
- Current approaches include culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization (CR), and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided CR.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy and safety of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided CR for nonculprit stenosis in STEMI patients with multivessel disease.
- To evaluate the impact of different revascularization strategies on major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
Main Methods:
- A systematic search of electronic databases identified randomized trials comparing culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided CR, and FFR-guided CR.
- Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to compare outcomes, with MACE as the primary endpoint.
Main Results:
- Complete revascularization (angiography- or FFR-guided) significantly reduced MACE, cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, and repeat ischemia-driven revascularization compared to culprit-only revascularization.
- Both angiography-guided CR and FFR-guided CR showed lower MACE rates than culprit-only revascularization.
- No significant difference in MACE was observed between angiography-guided CR and FFR-guided CR.
Conclusions:
- Complete revascularization, whether guided by angiography or FFR, is associated with improved outcomes in STEMI patients with multivessel disease compared to culprit-only revascularization.
- FFR-guided CR is not superior to angiography-guided CR in reducing adverse events.
- Further research is needed to identify optimal tools for risk-stratifying nonculprit stenoses.
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided versus angiography-guided approaches for nonculprit stenosis among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease.
Background:
The optimal strategy to guide revascularization of nonculprit stenosis among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease remains uncertain.
Methods:
Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials evaluating the outcomes of culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization (CR), or FFR-guided CR. A pairwise meta-analysis comparing CR versus culprit-only revascularization and a network meta-analysis comparing the different revascularization techniques were conducted. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
Results:
The analysis included 11 trials with 8,195 patients. CR (ie, angiography-guided or FFR-guided CR) was associated with a lower incidence of MACE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.59), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.98), recurrent myocardial infarction (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.95), and repeat ischemia-driven revascularization (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.35). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the incidence of MACE was lower with both angiography-guided CR (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.58) and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.78) compared with a culprit-only approach, while there was no difference in risk for MACE between angiography-guided and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.29).
Conclusions:
Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, CR, with angiographic or FFR guidance for nonculprit stenosis, was associated with lower incidence of adverse events compared with culprit-only revascularization. FFR-guided CR was not superior to angiography-guided CR in reducing the incidence of adverse events. Future studies investigating other tools to risk-stratify nonculprit stenoses are encouraged.
More Related Videos
07:25Predicting Amputation using Local Circulating Mononuclear Progenitor Cells in Angioplasty-treated Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia
Published on: September 22, 2020
13:48Reduction of Radiation Exposure during Endovascular Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease Combining Fiber Optic RealShape Technology and Intravascular Ultrasound
Published on: April 21, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care