Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 3:18 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-01-01 @ 6:14 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT04679805
Status:
TERMINATED
Last Update Posted:
2023-03-13
First Post:
2020-12-17
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Physio PCI: Impact of Coronary Angioplasty on Non-hyperaemic Pressure Ratio in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease
Sponsor:
Ceric Sàrl
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Impact of Coronary Angioplasty on Non-hyperaemic Pressure Ratio in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease.
Status:
TERMINATED
Status Verified Date:
2023-03
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Due to COVID-19 pandemic site refused to include patients in the study
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The use of intra coronary physiological assessment with fractional flow reserve (FFR) is nowadays the standard approach to define ischemia-inducing stenosis and guide myocardial revascularization strategy in patients with coronary artery disease. Further, FFR has been shown to be a strong and independent predictor of major adverse cardiac events after stent implantation. A lower value of FFR after stent implantation is associated with a worse clinical prognosis, without a clearly defined threshold above which clinical follow up are similar for all FFR values. Among 750 patients in the Fractional Flow Reserve Post-Stent Registry, the event rate was 29.5% in patients with FFR\<0.80 compared to 9 4.9% in patients with FFR\>0.95 (p\<0.001). However, FFR remains poorly adopted in many cathlabs, partly because of procedural time, discomfort or sides effect during hyperemia, non-uniform adenosine response and economical constraints. This leads to the validation of resting indices (instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), diastolic pressure ratio (dPR), and resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) among others). Those indices evaluate coronary physiology without the use of maximal hyperemia and have 15 slightly different threshold compared to FFR (≤0.89 vs 0.80, for iFR and RFR, and FFR 16 respectively).In the VALIDATE RFR study, a head-to-head comparison of RFR and iFR from a retrospective analysis, diagnostic accuracy of RFR was 97.4% with an area under the curve 1 (AUC) of 99.6%. In the more recent RE-VALIDATE RFR study, 431 patients with 501 lesions 2 were prospectively evaluated for the diagnostic performance of RFR in all-comers patients. Compared to iFR, RFR achieved high diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. These are the reasons why we designed a prospective, non-randomized, clinical trial, to better 18 explore the value of RFR before and after PCI in real live and after optimization by post dilation 19 in all-comers patients with coronary artery disease in the Middle East region..
Detailed Description:
None
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: