Over 10 North Carolina Auctions End Today - Bid Now
Over 150 Total Lots Up For Auction at Three Locations - Over 40 Ohio Auctions End Tomorrow 03/06 - Bid Now, CA 03/08, CA 03/15

Philips - largest analysis of real-world, long-term data shows iFR and FFR equally safe to diagnose and treat heart disease

Press releases may be edited for formatting or style | October 26, 2023 Cardiology
Amsterdam, the Netherlands – Royal Philips (NYSE: PHG, AEX: PHIA), a global leader in health technology, today announced the latest results demonstrating continued safety of Philips instant wave-free ratio (iFR) in the guidance of PCI. A longitudinal analysis from the National Swedeheart Quality Registry of more than 42,000 patients undergoing coronary procedures, showed no difference between iFR and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in major adverse cardiac events (MACE)3. The analysis, “Long-term Safety of Revascularization Deferral Based on Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio or Fractional Reserve,” compares patient outcomes using iFR and FFR in the diagnosis and treatment of heart disease.

“These new findings once again confirm the safety of iFR. We continue to see that iFR-guided treatment offers consistent outcomes, reduces costs, and provides a better patient experience,” said Dr. Götberg. “The data from this new analysis provides additional confidence in the safety of iFR for physicians.”

In the previously published analysis of the five-year outcomes of the randomized trial iFR-SWEDEHEART, results found iFR and FFR to be equally safe and effective with respect to risks for MACE. The cumulative MACE risks for each group differentiated by 1.6% (iFR: 21.5%, FFR: 19.9%, HR 1.09 (95% CI: 0.90-1.33, at 5-years. There was no difference in risk for death, heart attack or new revascularization. 3

The results presented today from the SWEDEHEART registry revealed that patients in the iFR group had more risk factors compared with the FFR group but when adjusted for known confounders there was no difference in 5-year MACE between patients who underwent iFR or FFR guided revascularization (32.2% vs. 31.3%, adjusted HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.93–1.05, p=0.65). Furthermore, the outcome was similar in the individual components of MACE (death, heart attack, new revascularization) as well as in both deferred and treated subgroups.

The results were presented during a late-breaking science session, “Long-term Clinical Outcomes After iFR vs. FFR Guided Coronary Revascularization – Insights From the SWEDEHEART National Registry,” by Dr. Matthias Götberg, Department of Cardiology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Sweden, at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) annual meeting in San Francisco.

Patient discomfort can be reduced by 95.7 percent
iFR is an innovative pressure-derived index, only offered by Philips, is considered the Gold Standard, that allows for hyperemia-free physiologic assessment for measuring pressure in diagnostic and interventional procedures.1,4 Similar to FFR, clinicians use these tools coupled with angiographic images to assess coronary blockages. However, by avoiding administrating a hyperemic agent, patient discomfort can be reduced by 95.7 percent and enables iFR to detect disease processes downstream from the major blood vessels.4

You Must Be Logged In To Post A Comment