Fractional flow reserve versus intravascular ultrasound guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate coronary stenoses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Intermediate coronary stenoses (40–70% diameter narrowing) pose a diagnostic challenge, as angiography alone often leads to inappropriate revascularization. Whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance yields superior outcomes remains unclear. This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis searched PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 2025. Eligible studies were RCTs or observational comparisons of FFR- or angiography-derived FFR versus IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in intermediate or angiographically significant lesions with ≥12-month follow-up. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences were calculated using random-effects models. Evidence certainty was graded using GRADE. Six studies (2 RCTs, 4 observational; n = 5050) were included. No significant difference was found in major adverse cardiac events (MACE: RR 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99–1.39; p = .06) or all-cause mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79–1.38; p = .74). Myocardial infarction rates were similar (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.88–2.51; p = .14). Ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization was significantly higher with FFR guidance (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07–1.91; p = .02). Mean stent length was numerically shorter with FFR (mean difference −2.07 mm, 95% CI −4.87 to 0.73; p = .15). Evidence certainty was moderate for MACE and target vessel revascularization, low for hard endpoints, and very low for stent length. In intermediate and angiographically significant coronary stenoses, FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI showed comparable hard clinical outcomes, but IVUS was associated with reduced target vessel revascularization. These findings support individualized modality selection based on clinical context and operator expertise, with a potential role for hybrid approaches combining physiological assessment for deferral decisions and imaging for procedural optimization.

Keywords

coronary artery disease / fractional flow reserve / intravascular ultrasound / major adverse cardiac events / meta-analysis / percutaneous coronary intervention

References

[1] Mir MA, Dar MA, Qadir A. Exploring the landscape of coronary artery disease: a comprehensive review. Am J Biomed Pharm. 2024; 1: 9-22.

[2] Hoole SP, Bambrough P. Recent advances in percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart. 2020; 106(18): 1380-1386.

[3] Mintz GS, Ali Z, Maehara A. Use of intracoronary imaging to guide optimal percutaneous coronary intervention procedures and outcomes. Heart. 2021; 107(9): 755-764.

[4] Truesdell AG, Alasnag MA, Kaul P, et al. Intravascular imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023; 81(6): 590-605.

[5] Song JE, Koo BK. Imaging and physiology in coronary artery disease assessment: current perspectives. J Cardiovasc Interv. 2024; 4.

[6] Nam CW, Yoon HJ, Cho YK, et al. Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate coronary artery disease: fractional flow reserve-guided versus intravascular ultrasound-guided. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3(8): 812-817.

[7] Johnson NP, Jeremias A, Zimmermann FM, et al. Continuum of vasodilator stress from rest to contrast medium to adenosine hyperemia for fractional flow reserve assessment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(8): 757-767.

[8] van Nunen LX, Zimmermann FM, Tonino PA, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 386(10006): 1853-1860.

[9] Zimmermann FM, Ferrara A, Johnson NP, et al. Deferral vs. performance of percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally non-significant coronary stenosis: 15-year follow-up of the DEFER trial. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(45): 3182-3188.

[10] Waksman R, Legutko J, Singh J, et al. FIRST: fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound relationship study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(9): 917-923.

[11] Lee YJ, Zhang JJ, Mintz GS, et al. Is routine postdilation during angiography-guided stent implantation as good as intravascular ultrasound guidance?: an analysis using data from IVUS-XPL and ULTIMATE. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2022; 15(1):e011366.

[12] Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71.

[13] Minozzi S, Dwan K, Borrelli F, Filippini G. Reliability of the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2) improved with the use of implementation instruction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022; 141: 99-105.

[14] Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses.

[15] Hu X, Zhang J, Yang S, et al. Angiography-derived fractional flow reserve versus intravascular ultrasound to guide percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease (FLAVOUR II): a multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2025; 405(10488): 1491-1504.

[16] Yang S, Hu X, Zhang J, et al. Long-term outcomes after fractional flow reserve vs intravascular ultrasound to guide PCI: the FLAVOUR trial extended follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025; 86(8): 593-606.

[17] Budrys P, Peace A, Baranauskas A, Davidavicius G. Intravascular ultrasound vs. fractional flow reserve for percutaneous coronary intervention optimization in long coronary artery lesions. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(18):2921.

[18] de la Torre Hernandez JM, Lopez-Palop R, Garcia Camarero T, et al. Clinical outcomes after intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve assessment of intermediate coronary lesions. Propensity score matching of large cohorts from two institutions with a differential approach. EuroIntervention. 2013; 9(7): 824-830.

[19] Wu H, Wu X, Yu W, et al. Comparative efficacy of intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve in guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. Medicine. 2025; 104(12):e41743.

[20] Kang J, Koo BK, Hu X, et al. Comparison of fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound-guided intervention strategy for clinical outcomes in patients with intermediate stenosis (FLAVOUR): rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial. Am Heart J. 2018; 199: 7-12.

[21] Gao XF, Ge Z, Kong XQ, et al. 3-year outcomes of the ULTIMATE trial comparing intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021; 14(3): 247-257.

[22] Shlofmitz E, Ali ZA, Maehara A, Mintz GS, Shlofmitz R, Jeremias A. Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: a universal approach for optimization of stent implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 13(12):e008686.

[23] Qadeer A, Khawar M, Abdul Ghaffar QB, et al. Impact of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor pretreatment on clinical outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a retrospective cohort study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2026; 107: 1100-1111.

[24] Matsuo H, Kawase Y. FFR and iFR guided percutaneous coronary intervention. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2016; 31(3): 183-195.

[25] Koo BK, Hu X, Kang J, et al. Fractional flow reserve or intravascular ultrasonography to guide PCI. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387(9): 779-789.

[26] Pathak PR, Khawar M, Khawar MM, et al. Intravascular ultrasound versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention for left main coronary artery disease: a Bayesian pairwise meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026; 87(13 suppl): A383-A384.

Rights & permissions

2026 The Author(s). Precision Medical Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Nanjing Medical University Affiliated Cancer Hospital & Jiangsu Cancer Hospital.