Routine Pressure Wire Assessment Versus Conventional Angiography in the Management of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: The RIPCORD 2 Trial
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
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; =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; =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 (=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.
Fan Y, Wang S, Cai X, Lu Z, Ma J, Lan H Front Med (Lausanne). 2025; 12:1490346.
PMID: 39897594 PMC: 11782551. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1490346.
Functional Coronary Revascularization: A Valuable Underutilized Diagnostic Approach.
Klein L Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2025; 25(12):430.
PMID: 39742229 PMC: 11683688. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2512430.
Reynolds H, Page C, Shaw L, Berman D, Chaitman B, Picard M Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2024; 17(12):e013743.
PMID: 39689188 PMC: 11658795. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.123.013743.
Coronary Physiology to Guide Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Why, When, and How.
Escaned J, Petraco R, Fearon W J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2024; 3(9):102198.
PMID: 39575212 PMC: 11576379. DOI: 10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102198.
Contemporary Functional Coronary Angiography: An Update.
Bennett J, Chandrasekhar S, Woods E, McLean P, Newman N, Montelaro B Future Cardiol. 2024; 20(14):755-778.
PMID: 39445463 PMC: 11622791. DOI: 10.1080/14796678.2024.2416817.