| 1. |
- Andersen, Birgitte Krogsgaard, et al.
(författare)
-
Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: design and rationale of the randomised FAVOR III Europe Japan trial.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. - 1969-6213.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) based on invasive coronary angiographic images. Calculating QFR is less invasive than measuring FFR and may be associated with lower costs. Current evidence supports the call for an adequately powered randomised comparison of QFR and FFR for the evaluation of intermediate coronary stenosis. The aim of the FAVOR III Europe Japan trial is to investigate if a QFR-based diagnostic strategy yields a non-inferior 12-month clinical outcome compared with a standard FFR-guided strategy in the evaluation of patients with intermediary coronary stenosis. FAVOR III Europe Japan is an investigator-initiated, randomised, clinical outcome, non-inferiority trial scheduled to randomise 2,000 patients with either 1) stable angina pectoris and intermediate coronary stenosis, or 2) indications for functional assessment of at least 1 non-culprit lesion after acute myocardial infarction. Up to 40 international centres will randomise patients to either a QFR-based or a standard FFR-based diagnostic strategy. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events is a composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, and any unplanned coronary revascularisation at 12 months. QFR could emerge as an adenosine- and wire-free alternative to FFR, making the functional evaluation of intermediary coronary stenosis less invasive and more cost-effective.
|
|
| 2. |
- Holm, Niels R, et al.
(författare)
-
OCT or Angiography Guidance for PCI in Complex Bifurcation Lesions.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - 1533-4406. ; 389:16, s. 1477-1487
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better clinical outcomes than angiography-guided PCI. Whether routine optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance in PCI of lesions involving coronary-artery branch points (bifurcations) improves clinical outcomes as compared with angiographic guidance is uncertain.We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial at 38 centers in Europe. Patients with a clinical indication for PCI and a complex bifurcation lesion identified by means of coronary angiography were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to OCT-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as death from a cardiac cause, target-lesion myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at a median follow-up of 2 years.We assigned 1201 patients to OCT-guided PCI (600 patients) or angiography-guided PCI (601 patients). A total of 111 patients (18.5%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 116 (19.3%) in the angiography-guided PCI group had a bifurcation lesion involving the left main coronary artery. At 2 years, a primary end-point event had occurred in 59 patients (10.1%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and in 83 patients (14.1%) in the angiography-guided PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.98; P=0.035). Procedure-related complications occurred in 41 patients (6.8%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 34 patients (5.7%) in the angiography-guided PCI group.Among patients with complex coronary-artery bifurcation lesions, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a lower incidence of MACE at 2 years than angiography-guided PCI. (Funded by Abbott Vascular and others; OCTOBER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03171311.).
|
|
