Coronary Physiology Guidance vs Conventional Angiography for Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The AQVA-II Trial

Simone Biscaglia*, Filippo Maria Verardi, Andrea Erriquez, Iginio Colaiori, Marta Cocco, Anna Cantone, Graziella Pompei, Andrea Marrone, Serena Caglioni, Carlo Tumscitz, Carlo Penzo, Marco Manfrini, Antonio Maria Leone, Francesco Versaci, Gianluca Campo

*Corresponding author

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The debate surrounding the efficacy of coronary physiological guidance compared with conventional angiography in achieving optimal post–percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) fractional flow reserve (FFR) values persists. Objectives: The primary aim of this study was to demonstrate the superiority of physiology-guided PCI, using either angiography or microcatheter-derived FFR, over conventional angiography-based PCI in complex high-risk indicated procedures (CHIPs). The secondary aim was to establish the noninferiority of angiography-derived FFR guidance compared with microcatheter-derived FFR guidance. Methods: Patients with obstructive coronary lesions and meeting CHIP criteria were randomized 2:1 to receive undergo physiology- or angiography-based PCI. Those assigned to the former were randomly allocated to angiography- or microcatheter-derived FFR guidance. CHIP criteria were long lesion (>28 mm), tandem lesions, severe calcifications, severe tortuosity, true bifurcation, in-stent restenosis, and left main stem disease. The primary outcome was invasive post-PCI FFR value. The optimal post-PCI FFR value was defined as >0.86. Results: A total of 305 patients (331 study vessels) were enrolled in the study (101 undergoing conventional angiography-based PCI and 204 physiology-based PCI). Optimal post-PCI FFR values were more frequent in the physiology-based PCI group compared with the conventional angiography-based PCI group (77% vs 54%; absolute difference 23%, relative difference 30%; P < 0.0001). The occurrence of the primary outcome did not differ between the 2 physiology-based PCI subgroups, demonstrating the noninferiority of angiography- vs microcatheter-derived FFR (P < 0.01). Conclusions: In CHIP patients, procedural planning and guidance on the basis of physiology (through either angiography- or microcatheter-derived FFR) are superior to conventional angiography for achieving optimal post-PCI FFR values. (Physiology Optimized Versus Angio-Guided PCI [AQVA-II]; NCT05658952)
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)277-287
Number of pages11
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2024

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Keywords

  • angiography-derived FFR
  • complex and high-risk indicated procedures
  • fractional flow reserve
  • microcatheter-derived FFR
  • percutaneous coronary intervention

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Coronary Physiology Guidance vs Conventional Angiography for Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The AQVA-II Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this