Study Design of the Graft Patency After FFR-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided CABG Trial (GRAFFITI).
Clicks: 451
ID: 46484
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
82.3
/100
451 views
312 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #1 of 3 articles by views in journal of cardiovascular translational research
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Clinical benefit of invasive functionally guided revascularization has been mostly investigated and proven for percutaneous coronary intervention. It has never been prospectively evaluated whether a systematic fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment is also beneficial in guiding coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The objective of the GRAft patency after FFR-guided versus angiography-guIded CABG (GRAFFITI) trial was to compare an FFR-guided revascularization strategy to the traditional angiography-guided revascularization strategy for patients undergoing CABG. Patients were enrolled with significantly diseased left anterior descending or left main stem and at least one major coronary artery with angiographically intermediate stenosis (30-90% diameter stenosis) that was assessed by FFR. Thereafter, while the FFR values were kept concealed, cardiac surgeons decided their intended procedural strategy based on the coronary angiography alone. At this point, patients underwent 1:1 randomization to either an FFR-guided or an angiography-guided CABG strategy. In case the patient was randomized to angiography-guided arm, cardiac surgeons kept their intended procedural strategy, i.e., CABG was guided solely on the basis of the coronary angiography. In case the patient was randomized to the FFR-guided arm, FFR values were disclosed to the surgeons who revised the surgical protocol according to the functional significance of each coronary stenosis. The primary endpoint of the trial was the rate of graft occlusion at 12 months, assessed by coronary computed tomography or coronary angiography. The secondary endpoints were (1) length of postoperative hospital stay; (2) changes in surgical strategy depending upon FFR results (in FFR-guided group only); and (3) rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, i.e., composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and any revascularization during the follow-up period. This study is the first prospective randomized trial investigating potential clinical benefits, associated with FFR-guided surgical revascularization.NCT01810224.
| Reference Key |
toth2018studyjournal
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Toth, Gabor G;De Bruyne, Bernard;Kala, Petr;Ribichini, Flavio L;Casselman, Filip;Ramos, Ruben;Piroth, Zsolt;Fournier, Stephane;Van Mieghem, Carlos;Penicka, Martin;Mates, Martin;Van Praet, Frank;Degriek, Ivan;Barbato, Emanuele; |
| Journal | journal of cardiovascular translational research |
| Year | 2018 |
| DOI |
10.1007/s12265-018-9818-9
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.