Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies in meta-analysis

From: Outcomes of deferred revascularisation following negative fractional flow reserve in diabetic and non-diabetic patients: a meta-analysis

 

Van Belle et al [11]

Lee et al [12]

Liu et al [13]

Alkhalil et al [14]

Castro-Meija et al [15]

Banerjee et al [16]

Hoshino et al [17]

Publication Year

2020

2019

2016

2020

2022

2021

2020

Follow up duration (years)

1

1

3

4

4

5

5

Trial Design

Prospective cross-sectional study

Post-hoc analysis of RCT

Prospective Registry

Prospective cross-sectional study

Retrospective open-label

Prospective Cohort Study (sub-group analysis)

Pooled analysis of 3 prospective registries (sub-group analysis)

Pressure wire modality and threshold for deferred revascularisation *

FFR > 0.8

FFR > 0.8; iFR > 0.89

FFR > 0.8

FFR > 0.8

FFR > 0.8; iFR > 0.89

FFR > 0.75

FFR > 0.75

Number of patients

958

579

512

860

434

53

879

Primary Outcome

MACE

MACE

MACE

MACE**

MACE

MACE

MACE

% Diabetic

30.9%

30.6%

27%

18.5%

35.3%

52.8%

33.6%

Indication for physiology

Stable disease (75.3%);

Current or recent ACS (24.7%)

Stable disease (81.2%)

Stable disease (60%)

N/A

Stable disease (35.6%); non-culprit vessel in ACS (33.3%); Unstable angina (20%)

Stable disease (100%)

Stable disease or ACS non-culprit vessel

% Male

72.3%

N/A

57%

74%

76.5%

N/A

N/A

Mean Age

66.3

N/A

66.9

66

N/A

N/A

N/A

Mean FFR

0.89 ± 0.05

N/A

N/A

0.88 (0.84–0.91)

0.87 ± 0.46

N/A

N/A

  1. *Only patients with FFR > 0.8 used in this meta-analysis
  2. **For this study, secondary outcome used in meta-analysis rather than primary outcome, due to consistency with the primary outcome of the meta-analysis