Key result
iFR proves noninferior to FFR for MACE with shorter procedural times and fewer adverse signs.
Why the study?
Does iFR-guided coronary revascularization prevent major adverse cardiac events at 1 year as effectively as FFR-guided revascularization in patients undergoing PCI?
Population
Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
Comparison
Coronary revascularization guided by… vs Coronary revascularization guided by fractional…
Design
RCT
Follow-up
1 year
Authors
Loading...
Favors iFR for routine PCI guidance given procedural efficiencies; extends FFR-based evidence with direct RCT comparison.
Does iFR-guided coronary revascularization prevent major adverse cardiac events at 1 year as effectively as FFR-guided revascularization in patients undergoing PCI?
iFR-guided PCI is noninferior to FFR-guided PCI for 1-year major adverse cardiac events, while offering shorter procedural times and fewer adverse procedural symptoms.
Davies et al. (2017) studied this question. Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to FFR for major adverse cardiac events, with fewer adverse signs and shorter procedural time using iFR.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: