Ullrich-Daub Helen, Olschewski Maximilian, Schnorbus Boris, Belhadj Khelifa-Anis, Köhler Till, Vosseler Markus, Münzel Thomas, Gori Tommaso
Department of Cardiology, Cardiology I, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Standort RheinMain, Frankfurt, Germany.
Clin Res Cardiol. 2025 Jun;114(6):729-737. doi: 10.1007/s00392-024-02484-5. Epub 2024 Jul 9.
Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes often have multivessel disease (MVD). Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based technology that may help quantify the functional significance of non-culprit lesions, with the advantage that measurements are possible also once the patient is discharged from the catheterization laboratory.
Our two-center, randomized superiority trial aimed to test whether QFR, as compared to angiography, modifies the rate of non-culprit lesion interventions (primary functional endpoint) and improves the outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes and MVD (primary clinical endpoint).
In total, 202 consecutive patients (64 [56-71] years of age, 160 men) with STEMI (n = 69 (34%)), NSTEMI (n = 94 (47%)), or unstable angina (n = 39 (19%)) and MVD who had undergone successful treatment of all culprit lesions were randomized 1:1 to angiography- vs. QFR-guided delayed revascularization of 246 non-culprit stenoses (1.2/patient).
The proportion of patients assigned to percutaneous intervention was not different between groups (angiography group: 45 (45%) vs. QFR: 56 (55%), P = 0.125; relative risk = 0.80 (0.60-1.06)). At 12 months, a primary clinical endpoint event (composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, revascularization, and significant angina) occurred in 24 patients (angiography-guided) and 23 patients (QFR-guided; P = 0.637, HR = 1.16 [0.63-2.15]). None of its components was different between groups.
QFR guidance based on analysis of images from the primary intervention was not associated with a difference in the rate of non-culprit lesion staged revascularization nor in the 12-month incidence of clinical events in patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease.
ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04808310).
接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性冠状动脉综合征的患者通常患有多支血管病变(MVD)。定量血流比(QFR)是一种基于血管造影的技术,可能有助于量化非罪犯病变的功能意义,其优点是在患者从导管室出院后也可以进行测量。
我们的双中心随机优势试验旨在测试与血管造影相比,QFR是否能改变非罪犯病变干预率(主要功能终点),并改善急性冠状动脉综合征和MVD患者的预后(主要临床终点)。
总共202例连续患者(年龄64[56 - 71]岁,男性160例),患有ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI,n = 69例[34%])、非ST段抬高型心肌梗死(NSTEMI,n = 94例[47%])或不稳定型心绞痛(n = 39例[19%])且患有MVD,所有罪犯病变均已成功治疗,将其1:1随机分为血管造影引导组和QFR引导组,对246处非罪犯狭窄病变(每例患者1.2处)进行延迟血运重建。
两组中接受经皮介入治疗的患者比例无差异(血管造影组:45例[45%] vs. QFR组:56例[55%],P = 0.125;相对风险 = 0.80[0.60 - 1.06])。在12个月时,24例(血管造影引导组)和23例(QFR引导组)患者发生了主要临床终点事件(死亡、非致命性心肌梗死、血运重建和严重心绞痛的复合事件;P = 0.637,HR = 1.16[0.63 - 2.15])。其各个组成部分在两组之间均无差异。
基于初次介入图像分析的QFR引导与急性冠状动脉综合征和多支血管病变患者的非罪犯病变分期血运重建率差异以及12个月临床事件发生率差异均无关。
ClinicalTrials.gov注册库(NCT04808310)。