Coronary disease & ACSRandomised controlled trial
Impact for Treatment Decision-Making and Clinical Outcome of Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve
- Randomised controlled trial
- prospective
- multicentre
- non-inferiority
Authors' conclusion
Angiography-derived FFR-guided revascularization was noninferior to pressure wire-based FFR-guided strategy for determining revascularization in patients with stable coronary artery disease.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with stable CAD at 13 Japanese centres
- Participants
- 401 patients · 483 vessels
- Comparison
- Angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) vs Pressure wire-based FFR
- Primary endpoint
- Revascularization rate (proportion undergoing PCI or CABG based on physiologic assessment); noninferiority
Primary result
Revascularization rate
Absolute difference
3.5%
95% CI −6.0 to 13.1
P = 0.049 for non-inferiority
By group
Angiography-derived FFR vs Pressure wire-based FFR
absolute difference 3.5% (95% CI −6.0 to 13.1); P for non-inferiority = 0.049
As reported in the abstract
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Angiography-derived FFR | Pressure wire-based FFR | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MACE (cardiac death, any MI or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) · 1 year | 8.4% | 10.1% | 0.84 (0.44–1.60) | P = 0.591 | |
| 0.512Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Impact for Treatment Decision-Making and Clinical Outcome of Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Published 10 August 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2026.05.028
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it