Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Aug 30;146(9):687-698.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057793. Epub 2022 Aug 10.

Routine Pressure Wire Assessment Versus Conventional Angiography in the Management of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: The RIPCORD 2 Trial

Rodney H Stables  1 , Liam J Mullen  1 , Mostafa Elguindy  1 , Zoe Nicholas  2 , Yousra H Aboul-Enien  1 , Ian Kemp  1 , Peter O'Kane  3 , Alex Hobson  4 , Thomas W Johnson  5 , Sohail Q Khan  6 , Stephen B Wheatcroft  7 , Scot Garg  8 , Azfar G Zaman  9 , Mamas A Mamas  10 , James Nolan  10 , Sachin Jadhav  11 , Colin Berry  12 , Stuart Watkins  13 , David Hildick-Smith  14 , Julian Gunn  15 , Dwayne Conway  16 , Angels Hoye  17 , Iftikhar A Fazal  18 , Colm G Hanratty  19 , Bernard De Bruyne  20 , Nick Curzen  21
Affiliations
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Routine Pressure Wire Assessment Versus Conventional Angiography in the Management of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: The RIPCORD 2 Trial

Rodney H Stables et al. Circulation. .
Free article

Abstract

Background: Measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) has an established role in guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. We tested the hypothesis that, at the stage of diagnostic invasive coronary angiography, systematic FFR-guided assessment of coronary artery disease would be superior, in terms of resource use and quality of life, to assessment by angiography alone.

Methods: We performed an open-label, randomized, controlled trial in 17 UK centers, recruiting 1100 patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography for the investigation of stable angina or non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Patients were randomized to either angiography alone (angiography) or angiography with systematic pressure wire assessment of all epicardial vessels >2.25 mm in diameter (angiography+FFR). The coprimary outcomes assessed at 1 year were National Health Service hospital costs and quality of life. Prespecified secondary outcomes included clinical events.

Results: In the angiography+FFR arm, the median number of vessels examined was 4 (interquartile range, 3-5). The median hospital costs were similar: angiography, £4136 (interquartile range, £2613-£7015); and angiography+FFR, £4510 (£2721-£7415; P=0.137). There was no difference in median quality of life using the visual analog scale of the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L: angiography, 75 (interquartile range, 60-87); and angiography+FFR, 75 (interquartile range, 60-90; P=0.88). The number of clinical events was as follows: deaths, 5 versus 8; strokes, 3 versus 4; myocardial infarctions, 23 versus 22; and unplanned revascularizations, 26 versus 33, with a composite hierarchical event rate of 8.7% (48 of 552) for angiography versus 9.5% (52 of 548) for angiography+FFR (P=0.64).

Conclusions: A strategy of systematic FFR assessment compared with angiography alone did not result in a significant reduction in cost or improvement in quality of life.

Registration: URL: https://www.

Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01070771.

Keywords: coronary angiography; costs and cost analysis; physiology; quality of life; randomized controlled trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Associated data