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).