Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
September 9, 2026 · via Europe PMC
Prognostic Value of Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Following Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty.
Rubio PM, Bossard M, Amurrio OJ, +7 more, Garcia-Garcia HM.
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
In patients undergoing drug-coated balloon angioplasty, a non-wire-based angiography-derived physiology measure (μQFR) taken after the procedure was not associated with the need for repeat treatment of the same lesion at 2 years.
What was studied
An analysis of 205 consecutive patients from the prospective SIROOP registry undergoing drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty for de novo coronary lesions, stratified by post-procedural angiography-derived micro quantitative flow ratio (μQFR) using a cutoff of 0.80, examining the association with clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2-year follow-up.
Key findings
- Of 205 patients, 51 (24.9%) had post-procedural μQFR ≤0.80 and 154 (75.1%) had μQFR >0.80, with similar baseline clinical characteristics between groups.
- Target lesion revascularization occurred in 9 patients (4.4%) over 2-year follow-up.
- Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in target lesion revascularization between the two μQFR groups (log-rank p=0.488).
Clinical relevance
This suggests that post-procedural μQFR using a cutoff of 0.80 may not be a reliable predictor of repeat revascularization need after drug-coated balloon angioplasty, which the authors note underscores the need for further prospective study of this measure's role in this specific treatment context.
Who should care
Limitations
Single registry-based analysis with a relatively small sample (205 patients) and a low overall event rate (9 events), limiting statistical power to detect smaller differences between groups.
A newer, wire-free way of measuring blood flow after balloon-only artery treatment did not predict which patients would need repeat procedures within 2 years.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
Background
The role of post-procedural physiological assessment after drug-coated balloon (DCB) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains poorly defined. Angiography-derived indices such as μQFR provide a non-wire-based alternative to traditional physiological measurements, yet their prognostic value following DCB-PCI has not been established.
Aims
To explore the association between post-procedural μQFR and target lesion revascularization (TLR) in patients undergoing DCB angioplasty for de novo coronary lesions.
Methods
This analysis included consecutive patients from the prospective SIROOP registry undergoing DCB-PCI for de novo coronary lesions. Post-procedural μQFR was assessed offline using a dedicated angiography-derived physiology software (AngioPlus, Pulse Medical Imaging Technology, Shanghai, China). Patients were stratified according to a post-procedural μQFR cutoff of 0.80 (≤ 0.80 vs. > 0.80). The primary endpoint was clinically driven TLR at 2-year follow-up.
Results
A total of 205 patients were analyzed, of whom 51 (24.9%) had a post-procedural μQFR ≤ 0.80 and 154 (75.1%) had a μQFR > 0.80. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between groups. During 2-year follow-up, TLR occurred in nine patients (4.4%). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated no significant difference in TLR according to post-procedural μQFR groups (log-rank p = 0.488).
Conclusions
In patients undergoing DCB-PCI for de novo coronary lesions, post-procedural angiography-derived physiological assessment using μQFR was not associated with clinically driven TLR at 2-year follow-up when applying a cutoff of 0.80. These findings underscore the need for prospective studies to clarify the role of angiography-derived physiology after DCB-PCI.
DOI
10.1002/ccd.70870
PMID
42717411
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed