Coronary disease & ACSCohort study
Prognostic Impact of Definite and Marginal Discordance Between Fractional Flow Reserve and Nonhyperemic Pressure Ratio
- Registry-based cohort study
- J-PRIDE registry
Authors' conclusion
Definite discordance between FFR and NHPR differs from marginal discordance in terms of clinical prognosis and associated factors.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with coronary lesions assessed by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPR) in the J-PRIDE registry
- Participants
- 3,200 patients · 4,304 lesions
- Exposure
- Definite and marginal FFR/NHPR discordance vs definite concordant negative (G1)
- Outcome
- Cumulative incidence of MACE:
- All-cause mortality
- MI
- Clinically driven revascularization
- Follow-up
- 1 year
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
MACE
Each group vs G1Adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI)P value
G4
1.98(1.07–3.68)
P = 0.029G6
2.18(1.18–4.04)
P = 0.013Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | aHR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All-cause mortality | 2.57 (1.19–5.56) | P = 0.017 | |
| 0.20.5125Adjusted hazard ratio (log scale) |
Factors associated with discordance
- FFR+/NHPR- lesions: G3 and G4 showed divergent associations with LAD or left main lesions and diameter stenosis
- FFR-/NHPR+ lesions: lower BMI, DM, anemia, AS, LV hypertrophy and in-stent restenosis associated with G6, not G5
Original publication
Prognostic Impact of Definite and Marginal Discordance Between Fractional Flow Reserve and Nonhyperemic Pressure Ratio. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Published 10 August 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2026.03.037
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it