Trial reportEuropean heart journal2015
Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial.
Trial report in European heart journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 115 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Developmental Clinical Study of Management Guided by Coronary Angiography Combined With Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) Measurement Versus Management Guided by Coronary Angiography Alone(Standard Care) in Patients With Non-ST Elevation MI.
Safety of Negative FrActional Flow Reserve in Patients With ChallEnging Lesions
Multimodality Investigation of Intermediate Culprit Lesion With Negative Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With no ST-segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Who cites it
115 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 313 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Deferred and Performed Coronary Revascularization Based on Intracoronary Physiology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Intravascular Imaging-, Physiology-, or Angiography-Guided Approaches for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Pooled it
- National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian Clinical Guideline for Diagnosing and Managing Acute Coronary Syndromes 2025.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Guideline
- Physiology- versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for people with coronary artery disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of the relative benefits of FFR-guided, angiography-guided CR or culprit-only revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Influence of plaque characteristics by coronary computed tomography angiography on lesion-specific ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of percutaneous coronary intervention with different guidance modalities in patients with coronary artery lesions: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of intravascular imaging, physiological assessment and angiography for coronary revascularization in acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in 2024.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2024Guideline
- Clinical Outcomes Following Hemodynamic Parameter or Intravascular Imaging-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents: An Updated Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 28 Randomized Trials and 11,860 Patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Bioresorbable scaffolds vs. drug-eluting stents for patients with myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Vasodilator Myocardial Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Superior to Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography in the Detection of Relevant Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Their Diagnostic Accuracy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Bias and Loss to Follow-Up in Cardiovascular Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Pooled it
- How to guide PCI?: A network meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multi-vessel disease patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2019Pooled it
- Fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention vs. medical therapy for patients with stable coronary lesions: meta-analysis of individual patient data.European heart journal · 2019Pooled it
- Consensus document for invasive coronary physiologic assessment in Asia-Pacific countries.Cardiology journal · 2019Guideline
- Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Strategy in Acute Coronary Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2018Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of cardiac imaging methods to diagnose ischaemia-causing coronary artery disease when directly compared with fractional flow reserve as a reference standard: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2017Pooled it
- Quantitative flow ratio or angiography for the assessment of non-culprit lesions in acute coronary syndromes, a randomized trial.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Trial
55 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
17 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimWe assessed the management and outcomes of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients randomly assigned to fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided management or angiography-guided standard care. METHODS AND
resultsWe conducted a prospective, multicentre, parallel group, 1 : 1 randomized, controlled trial in 350 NSTEMI patients with ≥1 coronary stenosis ≥30% of the lumen diameter assessed visually (threshold for FFR measurement) (NCT01764334). Enrolment took place in six UK hospitals from October 2011 to May 2013. Fractional flow reserve was disclosed to the operator in the FFR-guided group (n = 176). Fractional flow reserve was measured but not disclosed in the angiography-guided group (n = 174). Fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 was an indication for revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). The median (IQR) time from the index episode of myocardial ischaemia to angiography was 3 (2, 5) days. For the primary outcome, the proportion of patients treated initially by medical therapy was higher in the FFR-guided group than in the angiography-guided group [40 (22.7%) vs. 23 (13.2%), difference 95% (95% CI: 1.4%, 17.7%), P = 0.022]. Fractional flow reserve disclosure resulted in a change in treatment between medical therapy, PCI or CABG in 38 (21.6%) patients. At 12 months, revascularization remained lower in the FFR-guided group [79.0 vs. 86.8%, difference 7.8% (-0.2%, 15.8%), P = 0.054]. There were no statistically significant differences in health outcomes and quality of life between the groups.
conclusionIn NSTEMI patients, angiography-guided management was associated with higher rates of coronary revascularization compared with FFR-guided management. A larger trial is necessary to assess health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.