Coronary disease & ACSRandomised controlled trial
Coronary Physiology Guidance vs Conventional Angiography for Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
- Randomised controlled trial
- 2:1 randomisation
- superiority
- noninferiority (secondary aim)
Authors' conclusion
In CHIP patients, procedural planning and guidance on the basis of physiology (through either angiography- or microcatheter-derived FFR) are superior to conventional angiography for achieving optimal post-PCI FFR values.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with obstructive coronary lesions meeting complex high-risk indicated procedure (CHIP) criteria
- Participants
- 305 patients · 331 study vessels
- Comparison
- Physiology-guided PCI vs conventional angiography-based PCI
- Physiology-based PCIn = 204
- Conventional angiography-based PCIn = 101reference
- Primary endpoint
- Invasive post-PCI FFR value; optimal defined as >0.86
Primary result
Optimal post-PCI FFR (>0.86)
Absolute difference
23%
P < 0.0001
By group
As reported in the abstract
Further findings
Primary outcome, angiography- vs microcatheter-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) (physiology subgroups)
- Did not differ; noninferiority of angiography- vs microcatheter-derived FFR demonstrated
- P < 0.01
Original publication
Coronary Physiology Guidance vs Conventional Angiography for Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Published 23 October 2023. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2023.10.032
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it