Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes between Fractional Flow Reserve Guided and Intra-Vascular Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Chronic Coronary Syndrome

Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) can provide information about physiologically significant coronary lesions that can be intervened. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is also useful in providing thorough assessment of the intermediate lesions. This study was conducted to compare the short-term outcomes of FFR and IVUS guided percutaneous coronary intervention of intermediate coronary artery lesions in chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients. Methods: This Quasi-experimental study was conducted in the department of Cardiology, NICVD, Dhaka, for 12-months following ethical approval. A total of 100 CCS patients were enrolled in this study and divided into Group-I (FFR guided PCI, n=50) and Group-II (IVUS guided PCI, n=50) after taking written informed consent. Patients were followed up to three months after PCI. Detailed history, thorough clinical examination and necessary investigations were carried out in each patient and recorded in predesigned structured questionnaire. Data were analyzed by SPSS 26.0. Results: Both groups were statistically similar in terms of demographic profile, clinical findings, risk factors, angiographic findings (p>0.05) and angiographic success. Also, 96% in group-I and 92% in group-II respondents had procedural success. According to in hospital outcome, 1(2%) in group-I and 1(2%) in group-II respondents had myocardial infarction. 1(2%) respondent both in group -I and group-II also had LVF, while only 1(2%) respondent in group-II had death and cardiogenic shock respectively. Considering MACE after 03 months of follow up, 1(2%) death occurred in Group-II. However, no death in Group-I. 1(2%) respondent had NSTEMI in both groups. 1(2%) respondent had target vessel revascularization in Group-I and no respondents had in Group-II. While considering 1(2%) study population had faced cardiogenic shock, 1(2%) respondent had arrhythmia in both groups respectively and 1(2%) respondent had LVF in Group-I and 2(4%) had LVF in Group-II. ............