Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to FFR for major adverse cardiac events, with fewer adverse signs and shorter procedural time using iFR.
Does iFR-guided coronary revascularization prevent major adverse cardiac events at 1 year as effectively as FFR-guided revascularization in patients undergoing PCI?
Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
Coronary revascularization guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)
Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR)
Risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 yearcomposite
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.
Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE-FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02053038 .).
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Justin E. Davies
Sayan Sen
Hakim‐Moulay Dehbi
New England Journal of Medicine
University of Oxford
University College London
Washington University in St. Louis
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Davies et al. (Sat,) reported a other. Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to FFR for major adverse cardiac events, with fewer adverse signs and shorter procedural time using iFR.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6970ddc8cfea4c1fcf6a58d3 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1700445
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: