Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
CPC 2025
CPC 2026
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
FFR vs iFR for clinical outcomes: insights from machine-learning risk stratification
Session:
Prémio Melhor Comunicação Oral
Speaker:
Diogo Rosa Ferreira
Congress:
CPC 2026
Topic:
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
Theme:
25. Interventional Cardiology
Subtheme:
25.1 Invasive Imaging and Functional Assessment
Session Type:
Sessão de Prémios
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Diogo Ferreira; Marta Vilela; Sofia Morgado; Filipa Valdeira; Cláudia Soares; Fausto Pinto; Miguel Nobre Menezes
Abstract
<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><strong>Introduction</strong></span></span></span><br /> <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">Coronary revascularization guided by physiological assessment improves outcomes versus angiography alone, and trials have shown iFR to be noninferior to FFR at 1 year. Yet 5-year results from DEFINE-FLAIR (higher mortality with iFR) and iFR SWEDEHEART (neutral) have created uncertainty about long-term differences. We analyzed a large clinical cohort to compare FFR and iFR, evaluate prognostic performance, and apply machine learning to identify high-risk phenotypes among patients with negative physiological measurements.</span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><strong>Methods</strong></span></span></span><br /> <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">All patients undergoing FFR or iFR assessment from 2012–2022 were included. Clinical outcomes comprised 5-year all-cause mortality, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization). Outcomes were evaluated with Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models. In patients with negative iFR values, unsupervised machine-learning clustering identified subgroups, which were analyzed for 5-year outcomes.</span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><strong>Results</strong></span></span></span><br /> <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">We analyzed 1,314 physiological measurements from 915 patients (349 FFR; 566 iFR) with a mean 5.9-year follow-up. Baseline characteristics were similar and comparable to DEFINE-FLAIR, though iFR patients more often presented with ACS and had less prior PCI. All-cause mortality was higher with iFR (HR 1.52; CI 1.17–1.98), while rates of ACS, MACE, and unplanned revascularization were similar. Survival curves separated between 12–24 months, mirroring DEFINE-FLAIR. Physiologically positive lesions were numerically lower with iFR.<br /> To identify high-risk individuals within the iFR-negative population, we applied machine-learning clustering based on features distinguishing true from false negatives, identifying three clusters. Since clusters 2 and 3 showed no outcome differences, they were merged as low-risk, while cluster 1 was classified as high-risk. In five-year survival analyses, excess adverse events occurred in the high-risk group, which had higher rates of death (HR 2.6; p=0.006) and MACE (HR 1.83; p=0.03). This group was older with worse renal function, more anatomical and clinical complexity, and heavier comorbidity burden.<br /> Using the strongest prognostic variables, we built software that automatically identifies high-risk patients through an integrated risk-classification interface.</span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><strong>Conclusion</strong></span></span></span><br /> <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000">In this large real-world cohort, iFR was associated with higher 5-year mortality despite similar rates of ACS, MACE, and revascularization, echoing divergence seen in DEFINE-FLAIR. Machine-learning identified a high-risk phenotype within the iFR-negative population that accounted for the excess events. These findings challenge the assumption that a negative iFR uniformly denotes low risk and highlight the need for closer follow-up and potentially intensified management in selected patients.</span></span></span></p> <p> </p>
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site