Post-stenting fractional flow reserve vs coronary angiography for optimization of percutaneous coronary intervention (TARGET-FFR)
Primary result · Final post-PCI FFR ≥0.90Result — go to the resultDifference 10 % 95% CI −1.84 to 21.91Authors' conclusion
Over two-thirds of patients had a physiologically suboptimal result after angiography-guided PCI. An FFR-guided optimization strategy did not significantly increase the proportion of patients with a final FFR ≥0.90, but did reduce the proportion of patients with a final FFR ≤0.80.
Study context
- Population
- Patients after angiographically guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
- Participants
- 260 patients
- Comparison
- Post-PCI fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided optimization vs angiography-guided control
- PIOSn = 131
- Controln = 129reference
- Primary endpoint
- Proportion of patients with final post-PCI FFR ≥0.90
Methodological detailsinvestigator-initiated, single-centre, 1:1 randomisation
- Investigator-initiated
- Single-centre
- 1:1 randomisation
Primary result
Final post-PCI FFR ≥0.90
Difference
10 %
95% CI −1.84 to 21.91
P = 0.099
PIOS vs Control
difference 10 % (95% CI −1.84 to 21.91); P = 0.099
As reported in the abstract
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Difference (%) (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final FFR ≤0.80 (prioritized secondary outcome) | −11.2 (−21.87 to −0.35) | P = 0.045 | |
| −30−20−10010Difference, % (linear scale) |
- Further intervention in PIOS (post-dilation and/or additional stenting)
- 30.5%
Initial post-PCI FFR <0.90 (all patients)
- Initial post-PCI FFR <0.90
- 68.1%
Original publication
Post-stenting fractional flow reserve vs coronary angiography for optimization of percutaneous coronary intervention (TARGET-FFR). Eur Heart J. Published 19 July 2021. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it