Trial reportOpen heart2025
Phenomapping-derived selection of fractional flow reserve or optical coherence tomography to personalise percutaneous coronary intervention.
Trial report in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAn evidence-based selection between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) to drive percutaneous coronary intervention is still lacking.
methodsPatients enrolled in the Fractional Flow Reserve vs. Optical Coherence Tomography to Guide Revascularization of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses (FORZA) trial and in the OCT-Features Of moRphology, coMposItion anD instABility of culprit and not culprit coronary pLaquE in ACS patient (OCT-FORMIDABLE) registry were included. Target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite endpoint of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and TVR were considered as coprimary endpoints. Phenomapping with clustering was performed: incidence of outcomes according to FFR and OCT was explored.
results405 patients were treated according to OCT and 405 to FFR. Three different clusters were identified. 48% of the patients were included in the first cluster, presenting mainly with stable angina and a relevant burden of risk factors (cardiovascular risk factors, CVRFs). 21% of the patients were included in the second cluster, presenting with ST segment elevation MI (STEMI) and with low rates of CVRFs. 31% of the patients, being admitted mostly for non-STEMI (NSTEMI) and with high rates of CVRFs, were included in the third cluster. FFR and OCT performed similarly in terms of MACE and TVR in the first cluster. In the second cluster, rates of MACE were lower in the OCT arm (3% vs 12%, p 0.04), mainly driven by TVR (2% vs 6%, p 0.18). In the third cluster, rates of TVR were significantly reduced in the OCT arm (6% vs 14%, p 0.037) with a neutral impact on MACE (12% vs 15%, p 0.71).
conclusionsCompared with a functional assessment, an OCT-based approach reduces revascularisation in patients with STEMI/NSTEMI, while FFR proved non-inferior for patients with stable angina.
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.