Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
CPC 2025
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
Safety and Outcomes of iFR vs. FFR in Coronary Revascularization: A Real-World Cohort Study
Session:
SESSÃO DE POSTERS 40 - INTERVENÇÃO CORONÁRIA
Speaker:
Diogo Ferreira
Congress:
CPC 2025
Topic:
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
Theme:
25. Interventional Cardiology
Subtheme:
25.1 Invasive Imaging and Functional Assessment
Session Type:
Cartazes
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Diogo Rosa Ferreira; Miguel Menezes; Marta Vilela; Cláudia Jorge; João Marques; Pedro Carrilho; Tiago Rodrigues; Ana Rita Francisco; José Duarte; José Marques da Costa; Pedro Cardoso; Fausto Pinto
Abstract
<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><strong>Introduction:</strong></span></span></span><br /> <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">Coronary revascularization guided by functional assessment has been shown to improve patient outcomes compared to revascularization guided by angiography alone. Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that coronary revascularization guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is noninferior to fractional flow reserve (FFR) in terms of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. However, the 5-year results of the DEFINE-FLAIR trial raised concerns due to an observed increase in all-cause mortality in the iFR arm, contrary to the iFR SWEDEHEART trial. The aim of this study is to validate the safety of performing iFR versus FFR in a large real-world long term dataset, focusing on major adverse cardiac events.</span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><strong>Methods:</strong></span></span></span><br /> <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">Retrospective, single-center, observational study with patients undergoing coronary angiography guided by functional assessment from 2012 to 2022 in a tertiary center</span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">. Two groups were analyzed: patients assessed with FFR and those with iFR. Differences between the groups were evaluated using the chi-square, independent </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>t</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">-test or Mann-Whitney </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>U</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"> test. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate the primary composite outcome of death or myocardial infarction at two-year follow-up.</span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><strong>Results:</strong></span></span></span><br /> <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">A total of 543 patients were included, with a mean age of 67±10 years; 77% were male. Of these, 161 underwent FFR and 382 underwent iFR. There were no significant differences between the groups in sex distribution, relevant comorbidities, or baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, except for a higher prevalence of previous smoking and chronic kidney disease in the iFR group. The most commonly evaluated vessel in both groups was the left anterior descending artery, followed by the right coronary artery and the circumflex artery.</span></span></span><br /> <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">Medical therapy was more common in the iFR group (59% vs 52%, </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>p</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">=0.02), and PCI was performed less frequently (32% vs 42%, </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>p</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">=0.03). The mean procedure time was shorter in the iFR group (56 vs 62 minutes, </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><em>p</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">=0.005), with lower radiation doses (6.4 ± 2.8 vs 11.6 ± 4.6 Gy).</span></span></span><br /> <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">The primary composite outcome of death or myocardial infarction occurred in 37 patients in the iFR group and 16 patients in the FFR group, without significant difference between the groups. Similarly, no difference was observed in all-cause mortality (7.1%vs7.3%).</span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><strong>Conclusion:</strong></span></span></span><br /> <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">In this real-world cohort, no significant differences were observed in the composite outcome of death or myocardial infarction at two-year follow-up between patients undergoing coronary revascularization guided by iFR versus FFR. Although iFR was associated with shorter procedure times, lower radiation doses, and less frequent PCI, the safety profile of iFR appeared comparable to FFR, with no significant differences in all-cause mortality. This result is in agreement with the iFR Swedeheart trial, further strengthening the safety of using iFR for revascularization decisions.</span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"> </span></span></span></p> <p> </p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site