Search

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Results of clinical trials are often criticized by low inclusion rate and potential sampling bias in patient recruitment. The aim of this validation registry is to evaluate how far an all-comers design in the context of clinical research can ensure the representation of the true all-comers population. METHODS: This validation registry is a prospective international multicentre registry, conducted at 10 out of the total 21 centers, participating in TARGET-AC (registered under NCT02520180). During a predefined four-week period data were recorded prospectively on all PCIs performed in the participating centers, whether or not patients were enrolled in TARGET-AC. Data were collected on patient demographics, angiographic lesion- and procedural characteristics. For patients who were not enrolled in the study, operators were asked to declare the reason for not enrolling the patient, using a single-choice questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients were enrolled in the TARGET-AC study during the investigated period (ER group), standing as 20% (range 4% and 54%) of all eligible cases per protocol. In the ER group more patients presented with stable angina (61% vs. 43%, respectively; P < .001). Whereas ST-elevation infarction was less common (5% vs. 26%, respectively; P < .001), there was no difference in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (32% vs. 27%, respectively; P = .248). Risk factors and comorbidities did not show any difference between the ER and the non-enrolled (NER) groups, except for greater rate of significant valvular disease in the NER group (12% vs 19%, respectively; P = .037). The NER group presented more thrombotic stenoses than the ER group (20% vs 12%, respectively; P = .040). No difference was found in any other investigated angiographic parameters, like target vessels, bifurcation lesion, severe calcification or chronic total occlusions. Admission during regular working hours and availability of study nurse were associated with mark

Purpose: We investigated whether optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) implantation can improve in-scaffold minimal lumen area (MLA) at 6-month compared with angiography guidance. Methods: The OPTICO BVS was a randomized, international multicenter, assessor blind, superiority trial comparing OCT- versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (1:1 allocation) in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing Absorb BVS 1.1 implantation. The primary endpoint was in-scaffold MLA at 6-month. Results: The trial was prematurely stopped on May 31, 2017 after enrollment of 38 of 270 planned patients (14%) following the retraction of the device in Europe. Patients were randomly assigned to OCT- (n = 19) or angiography-guided PCI (n = 19). Scaffold diameter (OCT 3.0 ± 0.3 mm vs. angiography 3.1 ± 0.3 mm, P =.333) and length (28.8 ± 13.6 mm vs. 23.8 ± 12.3 mm, P =.223) were comparable. There was no significant difference in in-scaffold MLA at 6 months (4.47mm2 vs. 5.08mm2, P =.692). Scaffold expansion at 6-month was significantly higher in the OCT-guided PCI as compared with angiography-guided PCI (84.5% vs. 76.5%, P =.010). There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes. Conclusions: Although in-scaffold MLA at 6-month did not differ between groups, scaffold expansion was improved following OCT- as compared with angiography-guided PCI. The findings of this study must be interpreted in view of the premature termination with inclusion of 14% of the initially planned study sample.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the 2-year clinical outcomes of the Firehawk stent (Shanghai MicroPort Medical Group, Shanghai, China), a novel abluminal groove-filled biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent, compared with XIENCE (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California), a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting coronary stent. BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of the Firehawk stent have not been evaluated beyond 1 year in a randomized all-comers clinical trial. METHODS: The TARGET All Comers study is a prospective, multicenter, all-comers, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted in Europe. A total of 1,653 patients were randomly assigned to undergo implantation of either the Firehawk or the XIENCE stent. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: At 2-year follow-up, the incidence of target lesion failure was 8.7% in the Firehawk group versus 8.6% in the XIENCE group (p = 0.92). The event rates of individual components of the primary endpoint were comparable for the 2 groups. Landmark analyses between 1- and 2-year follow-up revealed no statistically significant difference of TLF for the Firehawk versus the XIENCE stent. Beyond 1 year, very late definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 3 patients (0.4%) in the Firehawk group and in 7 patients (0.9%) in the XIENCE group (p = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year follow-up of the TARGET All Comers study confirms comparable safety and efficacy profiles of the Firehawk and XIENCE stents.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate sex differences in procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)- and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategies. BACKGROUND: An iFR-guided strategy has shown a lower revascularization rate than an FFR-guided strategy, without differences in clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate stenosis to guide Revascularization) study, in which 601 women and 1,891 men were randomized to iFR- or FFR-guided strategy. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. RESULTS: Among the entire population, women had a lower number of functionally significant lesions per patient (0.31 +/- 0.51 vs. 0.43 +/- 0.59; p < 0.001) and less frequently underwent revascularization than men (42.1% vs. 53.1%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in mean iFR value according to sex (0.91 +/- 0.09 vs. 0.91 +/- 0.10; p = 0.442). However, the mean FFR value was lower in men than in women (0.83 +/- 0.09 vs. 0.85 +/- 0.10; p = 0.001). In men, an FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than an iFR-guided strategy (57.1% vs. 49.3%; p = 0.001), but this difference was not observed in women (41.4% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.757). There was no difference in MACE rates between iFR- and FFR-guided strategies in both women (5.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.50 to 2.43; p = 0.805) and men (6.6% vs. 7.0%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.46; p = 0.919). CONCLUSIONS: An FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than iFR-guided strategy in men, but not in women. However, iFR- and FFR-guided strategies showed comparable clinical outcomes, regardless of sex. (Functional Lesion Assessment of Inter

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: To date, no specific drug-eluting stent (DES) has fully proven its superiority over others in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of coronary artery stents in STEMI patients in a patient-level network meta-analysis. METHODS: Eligible studies were dedicated randomized controlled trials comparing different stents in STEMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with at least 12 months of clinical follow-up. Of 19 studies identified from the published data, individual patient data were collected in 15 studies with 10,979 patients representing 87.7% of patients in the overall network of evidence. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: Overall, 8,487 (77.3%) of 10,979 STEMI patients were male and the mean age was 60.7 years. At a median follow-up of 3 years, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), patients treated with paclitaxel-, sirolimus-, everolimus-, or biolimus-eluting stents had a significantly lower risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs]: 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63 to 0.88], 0.65 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.85], 0.70 [95% CI: 0.53 to 0.91], and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.88], respectively). The risk of primary endpoint was not different between patients treated with BMS and zotarolimus-eluting stents (adjusted HR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.51 to 1.38]). Among patients treated with DES, no significant difference in the risk of the primary outcome was demonstrated. Treatment with second-generation DES was associated with significantly lower risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis compared with BMS (adjusted HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.42 to 0.89]) and first-generation DES (adjusted HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.36 to 0.88]). CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients, DES were superior to BMS with respect to long-term effica

Contains fulltext : 209410.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Physicians are not always comfortable deferring treatment of a stenosis in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery because of the perception that there is a high risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The authors describe, using the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) trial, MACE rates when LAD lesions are deferred, guided by physiological assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to establish the safety of deferring treatment in the LAD using FFR or iFR within the DEFINE-FLAIR trial. METHODS: MACE rates at 1 year were compared between groups (iFR and FFR) in patients whose physiological assessment led to LAD lesions being deferred. MACE was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization at 1 year. Patients, and staff performing follow-up, were blinded to whether the decision was made with FFR or iFR. Outcomes were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 872 patients had lesions deferred in the LAD (421 guided by FFR, 451 guided by iFR). The event rate with iFR was significantly lower than with FFR (2.44% vs. 5.26%; adjusted HR: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.95; p = 0.04). This was driven by significantly lower unplanned revascularization with iFR and numerically lower MI (unplanned revascularization: 2.22% iFR vs. 4.99% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.03; MI: 0.44% iFR vs. 2.14% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.07; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: iFR-guided deferral appears to be safe for patients with LAD lesions. Patients in whom iFR-guided deferral was performed had statistically significantly lower event rates than those with FFR-guided deferral.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The FIREHAWK is a drug-eluting stent with a fully biodegradable sirolimus-containing polymer coating localised to recessed abluminal grooves on the stent surface. We investigated clinical outcomes with this targeted, low-dose, biodegradable polymer, sirolimus-eluting stent compared with XIENCE durable polymer, everolimus-eluting stents in an all-comers population. METHODS: The TARGET All Comers study was a prospective, multicentre, open-label randomised non-inferiority trial done at 21 centres in ten European countries. Patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic coronary artery disease and objective evidence of myocardial ischaemia who qualified for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomised 1:1 to undergo implantation of a FIREHAWK or XIENCE. Randomisation was web-based, with random block allocation and stratification by centre and ST elevation myocardial infarction. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but treating physicians and patients were not. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure at 12 months, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation. The control event rate for XIENCE was assumed to be 7%, the non-inferiority margin was 3.5%, and the primary analysis was in the intention-to-treat population, censoring patients who did not have either an event before 365 days or contact beyond 365 days. Late lumen loss was the primary endpoint of an angiographic substudy designed to investigate the non-inferiority of the FIREHAWK compared with the XIENCE stent. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02520180. FINDINGS: From Dec 17, 2015, to Oct 14, 2016, 1653 patients were randomly assigned to implantation of the FIREHAWK (n=823) or XIENCE (n=830). 65 patients in the FIREHAWK group and 66 in the XIENCE group had insufficient follow-up data and were excluded from the analyses. At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 46 (6.1%)

Contains fulltext : 196266.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND: Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS: The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used t

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: The study sought to assess whether treatment with ticagrelor, as compared with prasugrel and clopidogrel, improves endothelium-dependent dilation throughout the course of the treatment and other vascular biomarkers, including systemic adenosine plasma levels. BACKGROUND: The in vivo off-target effects of ticagrelor in post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients remain poorly characterized. METHODS: Fifty-four stable post-ACS patients were sequentially exposed to each of the 3 oral P2Y12 inhibitors following a 3-period balanced Latin square crossover design with 4 weeks per treatment in 5 European centers. The primary endpoint was the assessment of endothelial function with pulse amplitude tonometry and expressed as reactive hyperemia index at treatment steady state. Secondary endpoints included reactive hyperemia index after loading or before maintenance regimen, systemic adenosine plasma levels, a wide set of vascular biomarkers, and ticagrelor or AR-C124910XX plasma levels throughout each ticagrelor period. In 9 patients, the evaluation of endothelial function was performed simultaneously by pulse amplitude tonometry and flow-mediated dilation. RESULTS: Reactive hyperemia index did not differ after ticagrelor (1.970 +/- 0.535) as compared with prasugrel (2.007 +/- 0.640; p = 0.557) or clopidogrel (2.072 +/- 0.646; p = 0.685), nor did systemic adenosine plasma levels or vascular biomarkers at any time points. P2Y12 platelet reactivity units were lower after ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel at all time points and after maintenance dose as compared with prasugrel. Flow-mediated dilation did not differ after the maintenance dose of ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel and prasugrel. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor did not improve endothelial function or increased systemic adenosine plasma levels as compared with prasugrel and clopidogrel in stabilized patients who suffered from an ACS. (Hunting for the Off-Target Properties of Ticagrelor on Endothelial F

Background Use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) has proven to be clinically effective and safe in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction but it remains unclear whether it is cost-effective compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) in the long-term. We sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of EES versus BMS based on the 5-year results of the EXAMINATION trial, from a Spanish health service perspective. Methods Decision analysis of the use of EES versus BMS was based on the patient-level clinical outcome data of the EXAMINATION trial. The analysis adopted a lifelong time horizon, assuming that long-term survival was independent of the initial treatment strategy after the end of follow-up. Life-expectancy, health-state utility scores and unit costs were extracted from published literature and publicly available sources. Non-parametric bootstrapping was combined with probabilistic sensitivity analysis to co-assess the impact of patient-level variation and parameter uncertainty. The main outcomes were total costs and quality-adjusted life-years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Costs and effects were discounted at 3%. Results The model predicted an average survival time in patients receiving EES and BMS of 10.52 and 10.38 undiscounted years, respectively. Over the life-long time horizon, the EES strategy was €430 more costly than BMS (€8,305 vs. €7,874), but went along with incremental gains of 0.10 quality-adjusted life-years. This resulted in an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over all simulations of €3,948 per quality-adjusted life-years gained and was below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained in 86.9% of simulation runs. Conclusions Despite higher total costs relative to BMS, EES appeared to be a cost-effective therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients due to their incremental effectiveness. Predicted in

Background: An aging population means that chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, are becoming more prevalent and demands for care are rising. Members of primary care teams should organize and coordinate patient care with a view to improving quality of care and impartial adherence to evidence-based practices for all patients. The aims of the present study were: to ascertain the prevalence of diabetes in an Italian population, stratified by age, gender and citizenship; and to identify the rate of compliance with recommended guidelines for monitoring diabetes, to see whether disparities exist in the quality of diabetes patient management.Methods: A population-based analysis was performed on a dataset obtained by processing public health administration databases. The presence of diabetes and compliance with standards of care were estimated using appropriate algorithms. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was applied to assess factors affecting compliance with standards of care.Results: 1,948,622 Italians aged 16+ were included in the study. In this population, 105,987 subjects were identified as having diabetes on January 1st, 2009. The prevalence of diabetes was 5.43% (95% CI 5.33-5.54) overall, 5.87% (95% CI 5.82-5.92) among males, and 5.05% (95% CI 5.00-5.09) among females. HbA1c levels had been tested in 60.50% of our diabetic subjects, LDL cholesterol levels in 57.50%, and creatinine levels in 63.27%, but only 44.19% of the diabetic individuals had undergone a comprehensive assessment during one year of care. Statistical differences in diabetes care management emerged relating to gender, age, diagnostic latency period, comorbidity and citizenship.Conclusions: Process management indicators need to be used not only for the overall assessment of health care processes, but also to monitor disparities in the provision of health care.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to identify and verify independent correlates of device thrombosis from an analysis of multicenter trials and registries. BACKGROUND: Recent analyses suggest an increased risk of device thrombosis with Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) implantation compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, and data from moderate size studies suggest a risk relationship to vessel size and technique. METHODS: From 8,771 consecutively treated patients, 105 patients (1.2%) were identified with scaffold thrombosis within 1 year of implantation. They were matched 2:1 with controls selected randomly from nonthrombosis patients. Data-restricted multiple logistic analysis was used to identify significant independent covariates of the outcome. RESULTS: Early (within 1 month) scaffold thrombosis occurred in 69 patients and late (1 to 12 months) thrombosis occurred in 36 patients. Modelling found significant correlations of thrombosis to be final minimal lumen diameter <1.85 mm (odds ratio [OR]: 3.1; p = 0.004), off dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) status (OR: 3.1 to 3.5; p = 0.006 to 0.053), no post-dilatation with >1.1:1 balloon/scaffold ratio (OR: 2.3; p = 0.022), and reference vessel diameter <2.40 mm (OR: 2.1; p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal vessel sizing, procedural technique, angiographic outcomes, and dual antiplatelet therapy discontinuation appear to be the principal determinants of Absorb scaffold thrombosis risk through 12 months after implantation.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTS: At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P=0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE-FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, N

Background Among the 3 approved oral P2Y12 inhibitors for the treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), ticagrelor, but not prasugrel or clopidogrel, has been associated with off-target properties, such as improved endothelial-dependent vasomotion and increased adenosine plasma levels. Methods The HI-TECH study (NCT02587260) is a multinational, randomized, open-label, crossover study with a Latin squares design, conducted at 5 European sites, in which patients free from recurrent ischemic or bleeding events ≥30 days after a qualifying ACS were allocated to sequentially receive a 30 ± 5-day treatment with prasugrel, clopidogrel, and ticagrelor in random order. The primary objective was to evaluate whether ticagrelor, at treatment steady state (ie, after 30 ± 5 days of drug administration), as compared with both clopidogrel and prasugrel, is associated with an improved endothelial function, assessed with peripheral arterial tonometry. Thirty-six patients undergoing evaluable endothelial function assessment for each of the assigned P2Y12 inhibitor were needed to provide 90% power to detect a 10% relative change of the reactive hyperemia index in the ticagrelor group. Conclusion The HI-TECH study is the first randomized, crossover study aiming to ascertain whether ticagrelor, when administered at approved regimen in post-ACS patients, improves endothelial function as compared with both clopidogrel and prasugrel.

BACKGROUND Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODS We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTS At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P = 0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR.