Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 985

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI

Open access
Götberg, Matthias, Christiansen, Evald H., Gudmundsdottir, Ingibjörg J., Sandhall, Lennart, Danielewicz, Mikael, Jakobsen, Lars, Olsson, Sven-Erik, Öhagen, Patrik, Olsson, Hans, Omerovic, Elmir, Calais, Fredrik, Lindroos, Pontus, Maeng, Michael, Tödt, Tim, Venetsanos, Dimitrios, James, Stefan K., Kåregren, Amra, Nilsson, Margareta, Carlsson, Jörg, Hauer, Dario, Jensen, Jens, Karlsson, Ann-Charlotte, Panayi, Georgios, Erlinge, David, Fröbert, Ole·2017·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is an index used to assess the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been found to have similar diagnostic accuracy. However, studies of clinical outcomes associated with the use of iFR are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse cardiac events. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2037 participants with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of coronary-artery stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR. The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure. RESULTS: A primary end-point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) in the iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 2.8; P=0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58; P=0.53); the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points. The results were similar among major subgroups. The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfort during the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. (Funded by Philips Volcano; iFR SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02166736 .).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1616540

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 985

Metadata

Authors
Götberg, M., Christiansen, E. H., Gudmundsdottir, I. J., Sandhall, L., Danielewicz, M., Jakobsen, L., Olsson, S.-E., Öhagen, P., Olsson, H., Omerovic, E., Calais, F., Lindroos, P., Maeng, M., Tödt, T., Venetsanos, D., James, S. K., Kåregren, A., Nilsson, M., Carlsson, J., Hauer, D., Jensen, J., Karlsson, A.-C., Panayi, G., Erlinge, D., & Fröbert, O.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2017-05-11
Volume
376
Issue
19
Pages
1813-1823
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2595846181
Cited by
985
References
0
FWCI
105.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1616540
The paper
Götberg, M., Christiansen, E. H., Gudmundsdottir, I. J., Sandhall, L., Danielewicz, M., Jakobsen, L., Olsson, S.-E., Öhagen, P., Olsson, H., Omerovic, E., Calais, F., Lindroos, P., Maeng, M., Tödt, T., Venetsanos, D., James, S. K., Kåregren, A., Nilsson, M., Carlsson, J., . . . Fröbert, O. (2017). Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1616540

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.