Coronary disease & ACSRandomised controlled trial
Angiography-Based Physiology to Guide Coronary Revascularization
- Randomised controlled trial
- international
- open-label
- noninferiority
- 37 sites in Europe
Authors' conclusion
Among patients with intermediate coronary lesions, vFFR-guided revascularization was noninferior to FFR-guided revascularization with respect to a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 1 year.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with intermediate coronary lesions (diameter stenosis 30 to 80%) presenting with chronic or acute coronary syndromes
- Participants
- 1,116 vs 1,095
- Comparison
- Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR)-guided vs fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization
- vFFRn = 1,116
- FFRn = 1,095reference
- Primary endpoint
- Composite of:
- Death from any cause
- Any MI
- Any revascularization
- Follow-up
- 1 year
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Risk difference
−0.02 percentage points
95% CI −2.25 to 2.21
P = 0.004 for non-inferiority
Events by treatment group
vFFR vs FFR
risk difference −0.02 percentage points (95% CI −2.25 to 2.21); P for non-inferiority = 0.004
Non-inferiority margin 3 as printed, not drawn
Safety
Serious adverse events
- Incidence appeared similar in the two groups
Original publication
Angiography-Based Physiology to Guide Coronary Revascularization. N Engl J Med. Published 29 March 2026. doi:10.1056/nejmoa2601841
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it