Resting Full-cycle Ratio (RFR)-Guided Revascularization

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

RECRUITING

Total Enrollment

1167 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2022-07-27

Study Completion Date

2026-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of a 2-year follow-up to determine whether RFR-guided coronary intervention is non-inferior to FFR-guided coronary intervention in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Influence of FFR on the Clinical Outcome After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

NCT01873560

Coronary Disease

COMPLETED

Study of the Natural History of FFR Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

NCT01366404

Coronary Artery Disease

RECRUITING

Resting Full-cycle Ratio in Side Branch

NCT06075173

Coronary Artery Disease

UNKNOWN

The Use Of FFR Guided PCI Versus Complete Revascularization and Treatment Of Infarct Related Artery Only In Patients With STEMI

NCT02637440

Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease STEMI FFR Guided PCI

UNKNOWN PHASE3

INsTantenous wavE-Free Ratio-guided PCI Versus Fractional Flow REserve-Guided PCI in rouTine Clinical Practice, Prospective, Multicenter Registry

NCT03338309

Stable Angina Non ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction +2 more

ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Myocardial ischemia is a key determinant of clinical prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease. In this regard, functional assessment of intermediate coronary stenoses with transtenotic pressure ratios provides a more accurate measure of stenosis-derived myocardial ischemia in comparison to conventional coronary angiography (3-5). One of the major clinical benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR) is that, by acting as a gatekeeper, non-ischemia-causing lesions suitable for optimal medical treatment can be accurately identified, avoiding unnecessary coronary stenting. However, despite being support with the highest level of recommendation by the current guidelines for guiding clinical-decision making, adoption of FFR in the real world practice is still very low, mainly due to the need of hyperemic agents like adenosine that frequently cause patient discomfort, and time consumption. To overcome such limitations of pressure-wire derived index from the need of adenosine, other alternatives have been looking for over the last years. Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), a resting trans-stenotic pressure index obtained as the ratio of distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure during the diastolic wave-free period, demonstrated a good diagnostic accuracy to define functional significance of coronary lesions without need of adenosine, using FFR as reference. Recently, two large, randomized trials demonstrated that iFR-guided coronary revascularization is clinically non-inferior to FFR-guided revascularization with respect to one-year risk of major adverse cardiac events. Accordingly, like FFR, iFR is now receiving the highest level of recommendations to guide clinical decision making in patients with stable intermediate coronary stenosis. A new adenosine-free index, the resting full-cycle ratio (RFR), has recently emerged. RFR is defined as the lowest ratio of intracoronary distal pressure to aortic pressure under resting condition, irrespective of systole or diastole, and has demonstrated equivalent diagnostic performance to iFR. RFR has an advantage over iFR, because it is not limited by sensitive land marking of components of the pressure waveform unlike iFR.

This novel physiologic index without the need of adenosine has the potential to increase the worldwide adoption of coronary physiology in guiding coronary revascularization in daily clinical practice. However, there is a paucity of important data regarding clinical outcomes of RFR-guided revascularization strategy. We hypothesize long-term clinical outcome of RFR-guided revascularization is non-inferior to that of FFR-guided revascularization, and it reduce the rate of PCI than FFR-guided revascularization. Therefore, we sought to investigate the long-term effectiveness and safety of RFR-based decision making in patients with one or more intermediate coronary stenosis, and to assess whether it is non-inferior to FFR-guided revascularization.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Coronary Artery Disease

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Resting full-cycle ratio (RFR)-guided revascularization

The decision of coronary intervention is based on an RFR cut-value of 0.89. If RFR ≤ 0.89, target lesion will be revascularized, and if RFR \> 0.89, PCI will be deferred. However, even if RFR ≤ 0.89, PCI can be deferred if the RFR gradient of the lesion ≤ 0.02, or if the diffused type of stenosis, because physiological gain is expected to be very low.

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Fractional flow ratio (FFR)-guided revascularization

Study participants of FFR-guided PCI arm will be selected from a large-scaled, ongoing FFR registry. The decision of coronary intervention is based on an FFR cut-value of 0.80. If FFR ≤ 0.80, target lesion will be revascularized, and if RFR \> 0.80, PCI will be deferred.

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis (visually 50-90% diameter stenosis) who decided to undergoing a RFR-guided coronary intervention according to clinical necessity
* Patients who voluntarily decided to participate in this study and signed informed consent

Exclusion Criteria

* Severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVEF \<30%)
* Cardiogenic shock
* Culprit vessel in acute coronary syndrome
* Donor vessel to supply chronic total occlusion lesion of non-target vessel
* Symptomatic valvular heart disease or cardiomyopathy
* Hemodynamic instability at the time of intervention (heart rate \<50 beats per minute, systolic blood pressure \<90mmHg)
* Previous CABG with patent grafts to the interrogated vessel
* Pregnancy or breastfeeding
* Non-cardiac co-morbid conditions are present with life expectancy \<1 year or that may result in protocol non-compliance

Minimum Eligible Age

20 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

90 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No