Target vessel revascularisation (double-arm randomised and observational studies)
In the 2 randomised control studies12,13 with a total of 269 patients, we saw no significant difference in the rates of target vessel revascularisation associated with the use of FFR-guided CABG as compared to CAG-guided CABG. (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.23 to 2.19, p = 0.54) (Figure 3C). In the 2 observational studies14,15 and 1023 patients we again noted no significant difference with the use of FFR-guided CABG as compared to CAG-guided CABG. (RR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.73 to 2.06, p = 0.43) (Figure 3C). Ultimately, analysis of all 4 studies with a total of 1292 patients showed no difference between the FFR-guided CABG group as compared to the conventional CAG-guided CABG group (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.79, p = 0.73) (Figure 3C).