Biosensors, Aarhus University Hospital, and participating sites.

BACKGROUNDThe instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is an index used to assess the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been found to have similar diagnostic accuracy. However, studies of clinical outcomes associated with the use of iFR are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse cardiac events. METHODSWe conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2037 participants with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of coronary-artery stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR. The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure. RESULTSA primary end-point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) in the iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.5 to 2.8; P = 0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58; P = 0.53); the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points. The results were similar among major subgroups. The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfort during the procedure. CONCLUSIONSAmong patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. (Funded by Philips Volcano; iFR SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02166736.) a bs tr ac t

None.

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.

NCT01760083.

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundRemote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months.MethodsWe did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed.FindingsBetween Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91–1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed.InterpretationRemote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden.

No abstract