FFR(CT) provides high diagnostic accuracy and discrimination for the diagnosis of hemodynamically significant CAD with invasive FFR as the reference standard. When compared with anatomic testing by using coronary CTA, FFR(CT) led to a marked increase in specificity. (HeartFlowNXT-HeartFlow Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using Coronary CT Angiography [HFNXT]; NCT01757678).

AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and The Medicines Company.

BACKGROUND: Patients at high risk for bleeding who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often receive bare-metal stents followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. We studied a polymer-free and carrier-free drug-coated stent that transfers umirolimus (also known as biolimus A9), a highly lipophilic sirolimus analogue, into the vessel wall over a period of 1 month. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we compared the drug-coated stent with a very similar bare-metal stent in patients with a high risk of bleeding who underwent PCI. All patients received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary safety end point, tested for both noninferiority and superiority, was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy end point was clinically driven target-lesion revascularization. RESULTS: We enrolled 2466 patients. At 390 days, the primary safety end point had occurred in 112 patients (9.4%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 154 patients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.1 to -1.0; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.91; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P=0.005 for superiority). During the same time period, clinically driven target-lesion revascularization was needed in 59 patients (5.1%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 113 patients (9.8%) in the baremetal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to -2.6; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.69; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high risk for bleeding who underwent PCI, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with respect to the primary safety and efficacy end points when used with a 1-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy. (Funded by Biosensors Europe; LEADERS FREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01623180.).

"Real-world" outcomes of BVS showed acceptable rates of TLF at six months, although the rates of early and midterm scaffold thrombosis, mostly clustered within 30 days, were not negligible.

BackgroundQuantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel modality for physiological lesion assessment based on 3‐dimensional vessel reconstructions and contrast flow velocity estimates. We evaluated the value of online QFR during routine invasive coronary angiography for procedural feasibility, diagnostic performance, and agreement with pressure‐wire–derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a gold standard in an international multicenter study.Methods and Results FAVOR II E‐J (Functional Assessment by Various Flow Reconstructions II Europe‐Japan) was a prospective, observational, investigator‐initiated study. Patients with stable angina pectoris were enrolled in 11 international centers. FFR and online QFR computation were performed in all eligible lesions. An independent core lab performed 2‐dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (2D‐QCA) analysis of all lesions assessed with QFR and FFR. The primary comparison was sensitivity and specificity of QFR compared with 2D‐QCA using FFR as a reference standard. A total of 329 patients were enrolled. Paired assessment of FFR, QFR, and 2D‐QCA was available for 317 lesions. Mean FFR, QFR, and percent diameter stenosis were 0.83±0.09, 0.82±10, and 45±10%, respectively. FFR was ≤0.80 in 104 (33%) lesions. Sensitivity and specificity by QFR was significantly higher than by 2D‐QCA (sensitivity, 86.5% (78.4–92.4) versus 44.2% (34.5–54.3); P<0.001; specificity, 86.9% (81.6–91.1) versus 76.5% (70.3–82.0); P=0.002). Area under the receiver curve was significantly higher for QFR compared with 2D‐QCA (area under the receiver curve, 0.92 [0.89–0.96] versus 0.64 [0.57–0.70]; P<0.001). Median time to QFR was significantly lower than median time to FFR (time to QFR, 5.0 minutes [interquartile range, –6.1] versus time to FFR, 7.0 minutes [interquartile range, 5.0–10.0]; P<0.001).ConclusionsOnline computation of QFR in the catheterization laboratory is clinically feasible and is superior to angiographic assessment for evaluation of intermediary coronary artery stenosis using FFR as a reference standard.Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02959814.