Zhang Jinlong, Yu Wei, Hu Xinyang, Jiang Jun, Li Changling, Sun Yong, Zhu Lingjun, Gao Feng, Dong Liang, Liu Yabin, Shen Jian, Ni Cheng, Wang Kan, Chen Zexin, Chen Haibo, Li Shiqiang, Zhao Tonghui, Yang Seokhun, Kang Jeehoon, Hwang Doyeon, Hahn Joo-Yong, Nam Chang-Wook, Doh Joon-Hyung, Lee Bong-Ki, Kim Weon, Huang Jinyu, Jiang Fan, Zhou Hao, Chen Peng, Tang Lijiang, Jiang Wenbing, Chen Xiaomin, He Wenming, Ahn Sung Gyun, Yoon Myeong-Ho, Kim Ung, Lee Joo Myung, Ki You-Jeong, Shin Eun-Seok, Tahk Seung-Jea, Tu Shengxian, Wang Jian'an, Koo Bon-Kwon
Department of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine; State Key Laboratory of Transvascular Implantation Devices, Hangzhou, China.
Biomedical Instrument Institute, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 Jan 27;18(2):145-153. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2024.09.045. Epub 2024 Dec 18.
Recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over angiography-guided PCI. However, the role of angiography-based physiological assessment during IVI-guided PCI remains unclear.
This study aimed to explore the discrepancies and significance of angiography-based physiological assessments in IVI-guided PCI.
In the international multicenter randomized FLAVOUR (Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis) trial, angiography-based physiological assessment was retrospectively performed using the Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μQFR). In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized based on intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided treatment decisions (PCI or deferral) and μQFR as follows: negative μQFR with deferral of PCI (DEFER), negative μQFR with PCI (PERFORM), and positive μQFR with PCI (REFERENCE). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at the 24-month follow-up.
Of the 784 patients, 34.4% (270/784), 29.3% (230/784), and 31.5% (247/784) were categorized into the DEFER, PERFORM, and REFERENCE groups, respectively. Physiological assessment led to substantial reclassification, encompassing 48.2% (230/477) of patients who underwent IVUS-guided PCI. The REFERENCE group showed a higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events at 2 years compared with the PERFORM group (adjusted HR: 2.46; 95% CI: 1.13-5.35; P = 0.023). However, the primary outcomes in the DEFER and PERFORM groups were similar (adjusted HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.37-2.11; P = 0.779). The quality of life at 2 years was comparable among the 3 groups (P = 0.198).
Angiography-based physiological assessments can offer additional prognostic insights for patients undergoing IVI-guided PCI. IVUS-guided PCI may not be advantageous in patients with functionally insignificant lesions.
近期的随机临床试验已证明血管内成像(IVI)引导的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)优于血管造影引导的PCI。然而,在IVI引导的PCI过程中基于血管造影的生理评估的作用仍不明确。
本研究旨在探讨IVI引导的PCI中基于血管造影的生理评估的差异及意义。
在国际多中心随机FLAVOUR(中等狭窄患者临床结局的血流储备分数和血管内超声)试验中,使用基于默里定律的定量血流比(μQFR)对基于血管造影的生理评估进行回顾性分析。在这项事后分析中,根据血管内超声(IVUS)引导的治疗决策(PCI或延期治疗)和μQFR将患者分类如下:PCI延期且μQFR为阴性(DEFER)、PCI且μQFR为阴性(PERFORM)、PCI且μQFR为阳性(REFERENCE)。主要结局是主要不良心血管事件,定义为24个月随访时死亡、心肌梗死和靶血管血运重建的复合终点。
在784例患者中,分别有34.4%(270/784)、29.3%(230/784)和31.5%(247/784)被分类到DEFER、PERFORM和REFERENCE组。生理评估导致了大量重新分类,涵盖了48.2%(230/