Coronary disease & ACSSecondary analysis
Angiography-Derived FFR Versus Intravascular Ultrasound (IVUS) to Guide Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) According to Angiographic Lesion Characteristics
- post hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR II trial
- randomized
Authors' conclusion
A higher composite lesion risk score was associated with increased PCI rates and TVF risk after AngioFFR- or IVUS-guided treatment. AngioFFR guidance was associated with lower PCI rates in low-risk lesions, whereas IVUS guidance may yield more favorable outcomes in high-risk lesions.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with ≥50% stenosis randomized to AngioFFR- or IVUS-guided PCI
- Participants
- 1,726 patients
- Comparison
- AngioFFR vs IVUS
- AngioFFRn = 884
- IVUSn = 842
- Primary endpoint
- Target vessel failure:
- TVF: cardiac death
- Target vessel myocardial infarction
- Target vessel revascularization
- Follow-up
- median 12-month follow-up
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
P = 0.50
Further findings
TVF rate by lesion risk (high-risk score >0.32)
High-risk lesions
P = 0.010
Low-risk lesions
P = 0.531
Target vessel PCI rates by lesion risk
Low-risk lesions
P < 0.001
High-risk lesions
P = 0.675
TVF risk per higher composite lesion risk score
- Overall adjusted hazard ratio
- 2.76 [95% CI, 1.35-5.65]
- AngioFFR group adjusted hazard ratio
- 3.93 [95% CI, 1.79-8.63]
- IVUS group adjusted hazard ratio
- 1.62 [95% CI, 0.42-6.22]
Original publication
Angiography-Derived FFR Versus IVUS to Guide PCI According to Angiographic Lesion Characteristics. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. Published 19 May 2026. doi:10.1161/circinterventions.126.016809
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it