Background Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes often have multivessel disease (MVD). Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based technology that may help quantify the functional significance of non-culprit lesions, with the advantage that measurements are possible also once the patient is discharged from the catheterization laboratory. Aim Our two-center, randomized superiority trial aimed to test whether QFR, as compared to angiography, modifies the rate of non-culprit lesion interventions (primary functional endpoint) and improves the outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes and MVD (primary clinical endpoint). Methods In total, 202 consecutive patients (64 [56–71] years of age, 160 men) with STEMI ( n = 69 (34%)), NSTEMI ( n = 94 (47%)), or unstable angina ( n = 39 (19%)) and MVD who had undergone successful treatment of all culprit lesions were randomized 1:1 to angiography- vs. QFR-guided delayed revascularization of 246 non-culprit stenoses (1.2/patient). Results The proportion of patients assigned to percutaneous intervention was not different between groups (angiography group: 45 (45%) vs. QFR: 56 (55%), P = 0.125; relative risk = 0.80 (0.60–1.06)). At 12 months, a primary clinical endpoint event (composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, revascularization, and significant angina) occurred in 24 patients (angiography-guided) and 23 patients (QFR-guided; P = 0.637, HR = 1.16 [0.63–2.15]). None of its components was different between groups. Discussion QFR guidance based on analysis of images from the primary intervention was not associated with a difference in the rate of non-culprit lesion staged revascularization nor in the 12-month incidence of clinical events in patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04808310).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ullrich-Daub et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: