<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>12(2)</volume><submitter>D'Ascenzo F</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Introduction&lt;/h4>An evidence-based selection between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) to drive percutaneous coronary intervention is still lacking.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Patients enrolled in the Fractional Flow Reserve vs. Optical Coherence Tomography to Guide Revascularization of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses (FORZA) trial and in the OCT-Features Of moRphology, coMposItion anD instABility of culprit and not culprit coronary pLaquE in ACS patient (OCT-FORMIDABLE) registry were included. Target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite endpoint of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and TVR were considered as coprimary endpoints. Phenomapping with clustering was performed: incidence of outcomes according to FF</pubmed_abstract><journal>Open heart</journal><pagination>e003453</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12458727</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Phenomapping-derived selection of fractional flow reserve or optical coherence tomography to personalise percutaneous coronary intervention.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12458727</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Capodanno D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sanavia T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bruno F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Burzotta F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Giacobbe F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Boccuzzi G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>De Filippo O</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Fariselli P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Leone AM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Iannaccone M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Souteyrand G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sandrone S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Borzillo I</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>D'Ascenzo F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Amabile N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Caranzano I</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>De Ferrari GM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ugo F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Aurigemma C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ravetti E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Trani C</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Phenomapping-derived selection of fractional flow reserve or optical coherence tomography to personalise percutaneous coronary intervention.</name><description>&lt;h4>Introduction&lt;/h4>An evidence-based selection between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) to drive percutaneous coronary intervention is still lacking.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Patients enrolled in the Fractional Flow Reserve vs. Optical Coherence Tomography to Guide Revascularization of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses (FORZA) trial and in the OCT-Features Of moRphology, coMposItion anD instABility of culprit and not culprit coronary pLaquE in ACS patient (OCT-FORMIDABLE) registry were included. Target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite endpoint of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and TVR were considered as coprimary endpoints. Phenomapping with clustering was performed: incidence of outcomes according to FF</description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025 Sep</publication><modification>2026-06-03T19:49:37.664Z</modification><creation>2026-05-01T03:10:41.626Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12458727</accession><cross_references><pubmed>40967674</pubmed><doi>10.1136/openhrt-2025-003453</doi></cross_references></HashMap>