Coronary disease & ACSCohort study
Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After IFR- vs FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization
- Retrospective cohort study
- propensity-score matched
- nationwide registry (SWEDEHEART)
Authors' conclusion
In a large nationwide registry of patients undergoing physiology-based coronary revascularization, there were no significant differences in MACE or all-cause mortality between IFR and FFR-guided revascularization at 5 years.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing IFR or fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment, SWEDEHEART registry, 2014–2022
- Participants
- 24,623 patients
- Exposure
- IFR-guided vs FFR-guided coronary revascularization
- IFRn = 8,471
- FFRn = 16,152reference
- Outcome
- MACE:
- First all-cause death
- MI
- Repeat revascularization
- Follow-up
- 5 years
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
MACE:
- All-cause death
- MI
- Repeat revascularization
Adjusted hazard ratio
0.96
95% CI 0.82–1.12
P = 0.60
Events by group
IFR vs FFR
adjusted HR 0.96 (95% CI 0.82–1.12); P = 0.60
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Deferral of revascularization · more frequent deferral with IFR
P < 0.001
Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) components (all-cause, CV, cardiac and coronary death, new MI, revascularization) · 5 years
- No significant difference between IFR and FFR
MACE and components, deferred and treated (subgroups)
- No difference between groups
Original publication
Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After IFR- vs FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Published 24 February 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2024.12.003
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it