PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 25, 2026Precision Medical Sciences0 citationsOpen Access

Fractional flow reserve versus intravascular ultrasound guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate coronary stenoses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

View Full Paper
SPSanket PatelMKMirza Muhammad Hadeed KhawarMSMehwish Safdar

Key Points

  • This research aims to determine whether fractional flow reserve or intravascular ultrasound guidance improves outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention for intermediate coronary stenoses.
  • Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies from multiple databases.
  • Included studies compared FFR or angiography-derived FFR versus IVUS for PCI in intermediate coronary stenoses.
  • Pooled risk ratios and mean differences were calculated using random-effects models.
  • No significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.99–1.39; p = .06) and all-cause mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79–1.38; p = .74).
  • Ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization was significantly higher with FFR guidance (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07–1.91; p = .02).
  • Mean stent length was numerically shorter with FFR guidance (mean difference −2.07 mm, 95% CI −4.87 to 0.73; p = .15).

Abstract

Abstract Intermediate coronary stenoses (40–70% diameter narrowing) pose a diagnostic challenge, as angiography alone often leads to inappropriate revascularization. Whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance yields superior outcomes remains unclear. This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses‐compliant systematic review and meta‐analysis searched PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 2025. Eligible studies were RCTs or observational comparisons of FFR‐ or angiography‐derived FFR versus IVUS‐guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in intermediate or angiographically significant lesions with ≥12‐month follow‐up. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences were calculated using random‐effects models. Evidence certainty was graded using GRADE. Six studies (2 RCTs, 4 observational; n = 5050) were included. No significant difference was found in major adverse cardiac events (MACE: RR 1.17, 95% confidence interval CI 0.99–1.39; p = .06) or all‐cause mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79–1.38; p = .74). Myocardial infarction rates were similar (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.88–2.51; p = .14). Ischemia‐driven target vessel revascularization was significantly higher with FFR guidance (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07–1.91; p = .02). Mean stent length was numerically shorter with FFR (mean difference −2.07 mm, 95% CI −4.87 to 0.73; p = .15). Evidence certainty was moderate for MACE and target vessel revascularization, low for hard endpoints, and very low for stent length. In intermediate and angiographically significant coronary stenoses, FFR‐ and IVUS‐guided PCI showed comparable hard clinical outcomes, but IVUS was associated with reduced target vessel revascularization. These findings support individualized modality selection based on clinical context and operator expertise, with a potential role for hybrid approaches combining physiological assessment for deferral decisions and imaging for procedural optimization.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Patel et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69ec5a2588ba6daa22dabb91https://doi.org/10.1002/prm2.70034
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper