Key result
Deferring revascularization with iFR shows no difference in 5-year outcomes versus FFR in angina or ACS.
Why the study?
Does deferral of coronary revascularization with iFR compared to FFR improve clinical outcomes in patients presenting with stable angina pectoris and acute coronary syndrome?
Does deferral of coronary revascularization with iFR compared to FFR improve clinical outcomes in patients presenting with stable angina pectoris and acute coronary syndrome?
Deferral of coronary revascularization based on iFR versus FFR results in similar clinical outcomes at 5 years in patients with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome.
Supports iFR- and FFR-based deferral equivalence in stable angina or ACS; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
=0.63) or their individual components. Conclusions No differences in clinical outcomes after 5-year follow-up were noted when comparing iFR versus FFR as methods for deferral of coronary revascularization in patients presenting with stable angina pectoris and acute coronary syndrome. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02166736.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berntorp et al. (2023) studied this question. Deferring coronary revascularization using iFR versus FFR resulted in no differences in 5-year clinical outcomes among patients with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: