Skip to content

Comparison of Vessel-FFR Versus FFR in Intermediate Coronary Stenoses

Comparison of Non-Invasive Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve Calculated From Angiographic Images Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Intermediate Coronary Artery Stenoses

Status
Recruiting
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03497637
Acronym
LIPSIASTRATEGY
Enrollment
1054
Registered
2018-04-13
Start date
2020-10-23
Completion date
2026-11-01
Last updated
2024-11-25

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Coronary Artery Disease, Coronary Artery Stenoses

Brief summary

This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter, open-label study designed to assess whether vFFR is non-inferior to FFR in assessment of intermediate coronary stenosis in terms of the occurrence of MACE during 12 months after randomization.

Detailed description

Coronary angiography is insensitive to assess the physiologic significance of a coronary stenosis. Therefore, clinical guidelines support the use of pressure-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) to assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenosis. Nevertheless, the penetration of FFR in clinical routine continues to be limited by its requirement for pharmacological vasodilation, prolonged procedure time and adverse systemic effects from adenosine. Vessel-FFR (vFFR) is a novel method for evaluating the functional significance of coronary stenosis by calculation of the pressure drop in the vessel based on computation of two angiographic projections. The vFFR values at each point along the vessel are color-coded and superimposed on the 3D epicardial model and cut-off values of ≤0.80 identical to standard invasive FFR apply. These developments may translate towards more physiology guided intervention bearing the potential to improve clinical outcomes in patients with stable CAD. The ability to derive FFR values from routinely performed coronary angiograms, without the practical drawbacks that limit invasive techniques, could have an important impact on daily clinical practice. To date no randomized outcome-based clinical trial has compared an image-based FFR methodology with standard invasive FFR in terms of subsequent clinical outcomes.

Interventions

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTmeasurement of FFR

use of pressure-derived FFR to assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTmeasurement of Pd/Pa

use of resting distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) to assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses

Sponsors

Heart Center Leipzig - University Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Helios Health Institute GmbH
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Age \>18 years * Willing to participate and able to understand, read and sign the informed consent document before the planned procedure * Eligible for coronary angiography and/or PCI * Coronary artery disease in one or more native major epicardial vessels or their branches by coronary angiogram with visually assessed de novo coronary stenosis in which the physiological severity of the lesion is in question (typically 40-80% diameter stenosis). * Stable angina or acute coronary syndrome (non-culprit vessels only and outside of primary intervention during acute STEMI or NSTE-ACS) * Participation in another interventional study

Exclusion criteria

* Previous CABG with patent grafts to the interrogated vessel * Tandem stenoses separated by more than 10 mm that require separate pressure guide wire interrogation or PCI (not to be interrogated or treated as a single stenosis) * Total coronary occlusions * Hemodynamic instability (Killip class III-IV) * Heavily calcified or tortuous vessels * Terminal disease with life expectancy of less than 12 months * STEMI within 48 hours of procedure * Severe valvular heart disease * ACS patients with difficulty in assessing which the culprit lesion is * Significant contraindication to adenosine administration (e.g. Asthma bronchiale) * Pregnancy

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Major Adverse Cardiac Event (MACE) rate1 yearcomposite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or unplanned revascularization

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Each component of the primary endpoint assessed by structured telephone interview and verification by hospital reports1, 2 and 5 years
Repeat revascularization (PCI or CABG) assessed by structured telephone interview and verification by hospital reports in case of event1, 2 and 5 years
MACE during long-term follow-up2 and 5 years
Cross-over rate from the one strategy to the otherat intervention
Number of analyzable lesions in both treatment armsat intervention
All-cause mortality1, 2 and 5 years

Countries

Germany

Contacts

Primary ContactHolger Thiele, MD
holger.thiele@medizin.uni-leipzig.de+49 341 865 1428

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Apr 3, 2026