Key result
Angiography-derived physiological assessment yields similar 12-month MACE rates compared to wire-based methods.
Why the study?
It was unknown whether angiography-based physiological assessment yields clinical outcomes comparable to conventional wire-based pressure measurements in CAD patients undergoing intermediate stenosis evaluation.
Does angiography-derived physiological assessment yield comparable clinical outcomes to standard wire-based methods in patients with CAD undergoing evaluation of intermediate coronary stenoses?
Meta-Analysis (n=6,141)
Does angiography-derived physiological assessment yield comparable clinical outcomes to standard wire-based methods in patients with CAD undergoing evaluation of intermediate coronary stenoses?
Angiography-derived physiological assessment provides similar short-term clinical outcomes to traditional wire-based techniques for evaluating intermediate coronary lesions.
Angiography-derived indices may serve as wire-free alternatives for intermediate stenoses; confirms similar 12-month MACE versus wire-based methods in 3 RCTs.
This study aimed to determine whether angiography-based physiological assessment yields clinical outcomes comparable to those of conventional wire-based pressure measurements in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing evaluation of intermediate coronary stenoses. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 12, 2026. Randomized controlled trials comparing angiography-derived indices (such as QFR, vFFR, and angiography-based FFR) with standard wire-based methods (FFR/iFR) were included. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic. A total of three randomized trials involving 6,141 participants were included, with 3,089 patients assigned to angiography-derived assessment. At 12 months, no statistically significant difference was observed in major adverse cardiovascular events between the two strategies (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.58–2.25; P =.48). Additionally, outcomes including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel failure, repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, and cardiac mortality were comparable across groups (all P >.05). Angiography-derived physiological assessment provides similar short-term clinical outcomes to traditional wire-based techniques, supporting its use as a less invasive alternative for assessing intermediate coronary lesions. Larger studies with extended follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mudasir et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary artery disease (n=6,141). Angiography-derived physiological assessment vs. Standard wire-based methods (FFR/iFR) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.58-2.25, p=.48). Angiography-derived physiological assessment yielded similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months compared to wire-based methods (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.58-2.25; P=.48).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: