Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Impact of Routine Functional Testing on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Coronary Artery DiseaseRoutine Stress Testing Does Not Reduce Heart Risk After Procedure

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

Key Takeaway
Routine functional testing at one year post-PCI does not improve clinical outcomes but increases invasive procedures.

This randomized controlled trial evaluated the impact of routine functional testing at one year for patients with coronary artery disease following percutaneous coronary intervention. The study aimed to determine if regular surveillance influenced the primary composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina over a two-year period.

Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) during the initial procedure. Results indicated that patients receiving routine testing did not show a statistically significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events compared to standard care, regardless of whether IVUS or FFR was utilized during the index procedure.

While clinical outcomes remained unchanged, the study noted a higher frequency of invasive coronary angiography and repeat revascularization in the group receiving routine testing. These findings suggest that while functional testing provides physiological data, it does not currently translate into improved primary clinical outcomes for this patient population.

How this fits prior evidence

How this fits prior evidence: This finding addresses a gap in the management of patients following percutaneous coronary intervention. While previous coverage noted that acupuncture improves cardiac function and reduces MACE risk in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention, this study indicates that routine functional testing at 1 year does not improve primary clinical outcomes (death, MI, or unstable angina) regardless of IVUS or FFR guidance.

Researchers looked at 1,706 high-risk patients who had a procedure to open blocked heart arteries. The study aimed to see if routine functional testing at the one-year mark would improve outcomes, such as preventing death, heart attacks, or hospital stays for unstable angina over a two-year period.

The results showed that routine testing did not significantly change the primary clinical outcomes for patients. This remained true regardless of whether the doctors used specific tools like IVUS or FFR to guide the tests. While the tests did not lower the risk of major heart events, the study did find that patients who received routine testing underwent more invasive procedures, such as coronary angiography and repeat revascularization.

Because this was a prespecified subgroup analysis, the results should be viewed with caution. The main takeaway is that while routine stress testing is common, it did not show a benefit in preventing major heart complications in this group. Patients should talk to their doctors about the specific goals and risks of follow-up testing.

What this means for you:
Routine stress testing did not lower the risk of heart attacks or death but led to more invasive procedures.

Common questions

Does routine stress testing lower the risk of heart attacks?

The study of 1,706 patients found that routine functional testing at one year did not significantly reduce the risk of death, heart attacks, or hospitalizations for unstable angina. This was true for patients regardless of whether specific guidance tools like IVUS or FFR were used during the testing process.

What were the side effects of the testing?

The study did not report specific adverse events or safety concerns regarding the testing itself. However, it did note that patients who underwent routine testing were more likely to undergo invasive procedures, such as coronary angiography and repeat revascularization.

How does this affect patients with coronary artery disease?

For patients with coronary artery disease who had a procedure, the study suggests that routine testing did not improve primary clinical outcomes. Because the results are from a subgroup analysis, you should discuss the specific benefits and risks of follow-up testing with your doctor.

Study Details

Study typeRct
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up12.0 mo
PublishedSep 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
OBJECTIVE: The optimal follow-up strategy for high-risk patients who underwent imaging-guided or physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains uncertain. We investigated whether routine surveillance stress testing after PCI provides clinical benefit when the procedure is guided by intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) or fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS: In the Pragmatic Trial Comparing Symptom-Oriented vs Routine Stress Testing in High-Risk Patients Undergoing PCI randomised trial, 1706 high-risk patients who underwent PCI were assigned to either routine functional testing at 1 year or standard care alone. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, patients were subsequently categorised according to whether IVUS or FFR was used at the index procedure. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction or hospitalisation for unstable angina over 2 years. RESULTS: Among the randomised population, 74% underwent IVUS-guided intervention and 36% underwent FFR-guided intervention. At 2 years, rates of the primary outcome were similar between routine testing and standard care both in patients treated with IVUS guidance (5.3% vs 6.7%; HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.24) and without IVUS guidance (5.7% vs 3.8%; HR 1.52; 95% CI 0.63 to 3.68; interaction p=0.21). Comparable results were observed in patients with FFR guidance (2.6% vs 3.9%; HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.58) and without FFR guidance (7.0% vs 7.1%; HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.55; interaction p=0.59). Routine functional testing was consistently associated with higher use of invasive coronary angiography and repeat revascularisation, without improvement in clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients who underwent PCI, routine surveillance stress testing did not reduce the risk of death, myocardial infarction or unstable angina, regardless of the use of IVUS or FFR at the index procedure. Routine functional testing increased downstream invasive procedures without clinical benefit. These findings support guideline recommendations against routine surveillance testing after PCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03217877.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

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