The Usefulness of Coregistration with iFR in Tandem or Long Diffuse Coronary Lesions: The iLARDI Randomized Clinical...

Background. Despite technical advancements, patients with sequential or diffuse coronary lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have an increased risk of cardiovascular events at follow-up. We aimed to analyze the utility of a SyncVision/iFR (S-iFR)-guided PCI strategy versus an angiography-guided strategy in patients with this type of lesions. Methods. Randomized, multicenter, controlled, and open-label trial to compare S-iFR versus angiography-guided PCI in patients with sequential or diffuse angiographic coronary stenosis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04283734). The primary endpoint was the implanted stent length. The main secondary endpoint was targeting vessel failure (TVF) at one year. Results. A total of 100 patients underwent randomization, with 49 patients assigned to the S-iFR group and 51 to the angiography-guided PCI group. There were no differences between groups regarding clinical and anatomical characteristics. The baseline iFR was 0.71 ± 0.16 vs. 0.67 ± 0.19 (p = 0.279) in the S-iFR and angiography group, respectively. The mean lesion length was 42.3 ± 12 mm and 39.8 ± 12 (p = 0.297). The implanted stent length was 32.7 ± 17.2 mm in the S-iFR group and 43.1 ± 14.9 mm in the angiography group (mean difference, -10.4 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -16.9 to -4.0; p = 0.002). At one year, target vessel failure (TVF) occurred in four patients: three (6.1%) in the S-iFR group vs. one (1.9%) in the angiography group (p = 0.319). Conclusions. Among patients with sequential or long diffuse coronary lesions, a S-iFR-guided PCI strategy resulted in a reduction of the total stent length compared to an angiography-guided PCI strategy. A nonsignificant increase in TVF was observed in the S-iFR group.