lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI
Lund University.
Aarhus Univ Hosp, Denmark.
Reykjavik Univ Hosp, Iceland.
Helsingborg Hosp.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: New England Journal of Medicine, ISSN 0028-4793, E-ISSN 1533-4406, Vol. 376, no 19, 1813-1823 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is an index used to assess the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been found to have similar diagnostic accuracy. However, studies of clinical outcomes associated with the use of iFR are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse cardiac events. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2037 participants with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of coronary-artery stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR. The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure. RESULTS A primary end-point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) in the iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 2.8; P = 0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58; P = 0.53); the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points. The results were similar among major subgroups. The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfort during the procedure. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 376, no 19, 1813-1823 p.
National Category
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems
Research subject
Health and Caring Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-64427DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1616540ISI: 000400891100007PubMedID: 28317438OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-64427DiVA: diva2:1099058
Available from: 2017-05-29 Created: 2017-05-29 Last updated: 2017-11-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Carlsson, Jörg
By organisation
Department of Health and Caring Sciences
In the same journal
New England Journal of Medicine
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 21 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf