QFR-Based Virtual PCI or Conventional Angiography to Guide PCI: The AQVA Trial.


Journal

JACC. Cardiovascular interventions
ISSN: 1876-7605
Titre abrégé: JACC Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101467004

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 04 2023
Historique:
received: 21 04 2022
revised: 14 10 2022
accepted: 25 10 2022
medline: 14 4 2023
pubmed: 11 3 2023
entrez: 10 3 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) quantitative flow ratio (QFR) values ≥0.90 are associated with a low incidence of adverse events. The AQVA (Angio-based Quantitative Flow Ratio Virtual PCI Versus Conventional Angio-guided PCI in the Achievement of an Optimal Post-PCI QFR) trial aims to test whether a QFR-based virtual percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to a conventional angiography-based PCI at obtaining optimal post-PCI QFR results. The AQVA trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial. A total of 300 patients (356 study vessels) undergoing PCI were randomized 1:1 to receive either QFR-based virtual PCI or angiography-based PCI (standard of care). The primary outcome was the rate of study vessels with a suboptimal post-PCI QFR value, which was defined as <0.90. Secondary outcomes were procedure duration, stent length/lesion, and stent number/patient. Overall, 38 (10.7%) study vessels missed the prespecified optimal post-PCI QFR target. The primary outcome occurred significantly more frequently in the angiography-based group (n = 26, 15.1%) compared with the QFR-based virtual PCI group (n = 12 [6.6%]; absolute difference = 8.5%; relative difference = 57%; P = 0.009). The main cause of a suboptimal result in the angiography-based group is the underestimation of a diseased segment outside the stented one. There were no significant differences among secondary endpoints, although stent length/lesion and stent number/patient were numerically lower in the virtual PCI group (P = 0.06 and P = 0.08, respectively), whereas procedure length was higher in the virtual PCI group (P = 0.06). The AQVA trial demonstrated the superiority of QFR-based virtual PCI over angiography-based PCI with regard to post-PCI optimal physiological results. Future larger randomized clinical trials that demonstrate the superiority of this approach in terms of clinical outcomes are warranted. (Angio-based Quantitative Flow Ratio Virtual PCI Versus Conventional Angio-guided PCI in the Achievement of an Optimal Post-PCI QFR [AQVA]; NCT04664140).

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) quantitative flow ratio (QFR) values ≥0.90 are associated with a low incidence of adverse events.
OBJECTIVES
The AQVA (Angio-based Quantitative Flow Ratio Virtual PCI Versus Conventional Angio-guided PCI in the Achievement of an Optimal Post-PCI QFR) trial aims to test whether a QFR-based virtual percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to a conventional angiography-based PCI at obtaining optimal post-PCI QFR results.
METHODS
The AQVA trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial. A total of 300 patients (356 study vessels) undergoing PCI were randomized 1:1 to receive either QFR-based virtual PCI or angiography-based PCI (standard of care). The primary outcome was the rate of study vessels with a suboptimal post-PCI QFR value, which was defined as <0.90. Secondary outcomes were procedure duration, stent length/lesion, and stent number/patient.
RESULTS
Overall, 38 (10.7%) study vessels missed the prespecified optimal post-PCI QFR target. The primary outcome occurred significantly more frequently in the angiography-based group (n = 26, 15.1%) compared with the QFR-based virtual PCI group (n = 12 [6.6%]; absolute difference = 8.5%; relative difference = 57%; P = 0.009). The main cause of a suboptimal result in the angiography-based group is the underestimation of a diseased segment outside the stented one. There were no significant differences among secondary endpoints, although stent length/lesion and stent number/patient were numerically lower in the virtual PCI group (P = 0.06 and P = 0.08, respectively), whereas procedure length was higher in the virtual PCI group (P = 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS
The AQVA trial demonstrated the superiority of QFR-based virtual PCI over angiography-based PCI with regard to post-PCI optimal physiological results. Future larger randomized clinical trials that demonstrate the superiority of this approach in terms of clinical outcomes are warranted. (Angio-based Quantitative Flow Ratio Virtual PCI Versus Conventional Angio-guided PCI in the Achievement of an Optimal Post-PCI QFR [AQVA]; NCT04664140).

Identifiants

pubmed: 36898939
pii: S1936-8798(22)02083-0
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.10.054
pii:
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04664140']

Types de publication

Randomized Controlled Trial Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

783-794

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was an investigator-driven clinical trial conducted by the Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara. Dr Biscaglia has received a research grant from Medis, SMT, Siemens, Insight Lifetech, and GE; and has received personal fees from Siemens, Medis, and Insight Lifetech. Dr Tebaldi has received a research grant from Abbott. Dr Campo has received a research grant from Boston Scientific, Medis, SMT, Siemens, Insight Lifetech, and AstraZeneca. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Auteurs

Simone Biscaglia (S)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy. Electronic address: bscsmn@unife.it.

Filippo Maria Verardi (FM)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Matteo Tebaldi (M)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Vincenzo Guiducci (V)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Istituto in Tecnologie Avanzate e Modelli Assistenziali di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Serena Caglioni (S)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Roberta Campana (R)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Antonella Scala (A)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Andrea Marrone (A)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Graziella Pompei (G)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Federico Marchini (F)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Davide Scancarello (D)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Gianluca Pignatelli (G)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Istituto in Tecnologie Avanzate e Modelli Assistenziali di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Sergio Musto D'Amore (SM)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Istituto in Tecnologie Avanzate e Modelli Assistenziali di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Iginio Colaiori (I)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Istituto in Tecnologie Avanzate e Modelli Assistenziali di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Pierluigi Demola (P)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale, Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Istituto in Tecnologie Avanzate e Modelli Assistenziali di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Luigi Di Serafino (L)

Division of Cardiology, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

Carlo Tumscitz (C)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Carlo Penzo (C)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Andrea Erriquez (A)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Marco Manfrini (M)

Maria Cecilia Hospital, Gruppo Villa Maria Care and Research, Cotignola, Ravenna, Italy.

Gianluca Campo (G)

Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH