Key result
FFR-guided revascularisation showed similar 1-year MACE risk compared with angiography in NSTE-ACS (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.63-1.18) and CCS (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58-1.05) patients (P-int=0.792).
Why the study?
The role of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularisation in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) was unclear.
Does FFR-guided PCI reduce the risk of MACE compared to angiography-guided PCI in patients with NSTE-ACS and CCS?
Meta-Analysis (n=2,493)
Randomized
Yes
Does FFR-guided PCI reduce the risk of MACE compared to angiography-guided PCI in patients with NSTE-ACS and CCS?
Hazard Ratio: 0.86 (95% CI 0.63–1.18)
p-value: p=0.792 for interaction
FFR-guided revascularization offers similar clinical outcomes to angiography-guided procedures in both NSTE-ACS and CCS, supporting its use to safely defer unnecessary PCI in NSTE-ACS.
FFR-guided strategy shows similar MACE benefit in NSTE-ACS and CCS; leaves open dedicated trials before changing acute-care practice.
BACKGROUND: The role of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularisation in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) is unclear. AIMS: We sought to compare the outcomes of FFR-guided and angiography-guided revascularisation in patients with NSTE-ACS and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). METHODS: Individual patient data from five randomised clinical trials comparing FFR- and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were pooled and stratified according to the coronary syndrome subtype. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 1 year. RESULTS: Overall, 2,493 patients were considered, including 1,316 (52.8%) with CCS and 1,177 (47.2%) with NSTE-ACS. The relationship between an FFR-guided strategy and the risk of MACE at 1 year was similar across the two groups (CCS: hazard ratio [HR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-1.05; NSTE-ACS: HR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.63-1.18; p-value for interaction [p-int]=0.792). Similar findings were found for all-cause death (p-int=0.459), myocardial infarction (p-int=0.996) and repeat revascularisation (p-int=0.290). These results were confirmed through an extended exploratory analysis at 5 years of follow-up. In patients with NSTE-ACS randomised to FFR-guided revascularisation, the number of deferred lesions was not associated with an increased risk of MACE. CONCLUSIONS: FFR-guided revascularisation is associated with a similar clinical benefit in NSTE-ACS and CCS settings. An FFR-guided strategy should be considered to safely reduce unnecessary PCI in patients with NSTE-ACS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paolucci et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) (n=2,493). FFR-guided revascularisation vs. Angiography-guided revascularisation was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 1 year (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63-1.18, p=0.792 for interaction). FFR-guided revascularisation showed similar 1-year MACE risk compared with angiography in NSTE-ACS (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.63-1.18) and CCS (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58-1.05) patients (P-int=0.792).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: