Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Angiography-derived FFR meets noninferiority for revascularization rate in stable coronary artery diseaseNew imaging method shows promise for heart artery procedures

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that angiography-derived FFR met noninferiority for revascularization rates in stable coronary artery disease.

This randomized trial enrolled 401 patients (483 vessels) across 13 Japanese centers to evaluate angiography-derived FFR compared to pressure wire-based FFR in patients with stable coronary artery disease. The primary objective was to determine the noninferiority of angiography-derived FFR regarding revascularization rates.

The study found a revascularization rate of 41.4% in the angiography-derived FFR group versus 37.9% in the pressure wire-based FFR group (absolute difference: 3.5%). The noninferiority p-value was 0.049 with a 95% CI of -6.0 to 13.1. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events at 1 year, which were reported as 8.4% in the angiography-derived group versus 10.1% in the pressure wire-based group (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.44-1.60; P = 0.591).

Safety and tolerability data were not reported for either intervention. A primary limitation of this study is the requirement for confirmation in larger outcome-driven trials to establish if angiography-derived FFR can fully replace pressure wire-based methods. Clinically, angiography-derived FFR may serve as a practical, wire-free alternative for physiologic guidance during coronary revascularization.

Doctors often need to decide during a procedure whether to open a blocked heart artery. Usually, they use a tiny pressure wire to measure blood flow, but this can be complex. A study of 401 patients across 13 centers looked at an alternative: using images from the angiography itself to guide these decisions.

The results showed that the image-based method was not inferior to the traditional wire-based method for determining which arteries needed treatment. While the image-based group had a slightly higher revascularization rate of 41.4% compared to 37.9% in the wire-based group, the difference was small. Both methods were effective at identifying patients who needed intervention.

At the one-year mark, both groups showed similar rates of major heart events, such as heart attacks or death. While this new method could be a more practical, wire-free option for doctors, researchers note that larger studies are still needed to confirm these findings and ensure it can fully replace current standards.

What this means for you:
Image-based blood flow measurements may offer a practical, wire-free alternative for guiding heart artery procedures.

Common questions

How does this new imaging method compare to the current standard?

The study found that the image-based method was not inferior to the traditional pressure wire method. While the image-based group had a 41.4% revascularization rate and the wire-based group had 37.9%, both methods were effective at guiding treatment decisions for patients with coronary artery disease.

Is this new method safe for heart patients?

The study tracked patients for one year and found similar rates of major adverse cardiac events in both groups. The image-based group had an 8.4% event rate compared to 10.1% in the wire-based group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Can this method replace current heart procedures immediately?

While the image-based method may serve as a practical, wire-free alternative, researchers state it is not yet a confirmed replacement. Larger studies are needed to confirm if it can fully replace the pressure wire-based approach.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 401
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up12.0 mo
PublishedAug 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Pressure wire-based fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the reference standard for physiologic lesion assessment but remains underutilized owing to the need for hyperemia, procedural complexity, and wire-related risks. Angiography-derived FFR provides a wire- and hyperemia-free assessment derived from routine angiography; however, its clinical impact in guiding treatment remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether angiography-derived FFR is noninferior to pressure wire-based FFR in guiding revascularization decisions among patients with stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: PROVISION (Prospective randomized trial of clinical outcomes of angiography-based fractional flow reserve guidance versus wire-based fractional flow reserve guidance) was a prospective, multicenter, randomized study. Participants were randomized 1:1 to angiography-derived FFR-guided or pressure wire-based FFR-guided revascularization. The primary endpoint was the noninferiority of angiography-derived FFR in terms of revascularization rate, defined as the proportion of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting based on physiologic assessment. Secondary endpoints included the 1-year incidence of major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, any myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization). RESULTS: Overall, 401 patients (483 vessels) were enrolled at 13 Japanese centers. Revascularization was performed in 41.4% of patients in the angiography-derived FFR group and 37.9% in the pressure wire-based FFR group (absolute difference: 3.5%; 95% CI: -6.0 to 13.1; P for noninferiority = 0.049). At 1 year, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 8.4% and 10.1% of patients, respectively (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.44-1.60; P = 0.591). CONCLUSIONS: Angiography-derived FFR-guided revascularization was noninferior to pressure wire-based FFR-guided strategy for determining revascularization in patients with stable coronary artery disease. This finding suggests that angiography-derived FFR may serve as a practical, wire-free alternative for physiologic guidance of coronary revascularization, warranting confirmation in larger outcome-driven trials. (PROVISION; UMIN000049230).
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.