Coronary Artery DiseaseFUNFARENCT04698460
FUNctional eFficacy of Hybrid coronAry REvascularization
A study testing Hybrid coronary revascularization and Coronary artery bypass grafting in people with Coronary Artery Disease, run by Tomsk National Research Medical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences at 1 site in Russia.
Trial summary
The purpose of the study is to compare iFR-guided hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) and traditional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in terms of a functional efficacy of revascularization assessed by weighted average of iFRs measured 12 month post-procedure in the qualified coronary arteries (all arteries… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 40 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Coronary Artery Disease
- What is being tested?
- Hybrid coronary revascularization and Coronary artery bypass grafting
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 13 participants
- Where
- 1 siteRussia
- Study dates
- 15 Jan 2021to 5 May 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 40 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Signed written informed consent
- Stenosis ≥70% of the LAD and/or ≥50% of left main coronary artery in combination with at least one stenosis ≥70% of the Cx or RCA, suitable for revascularization (decided by a heart team)
- SYNTAX value ≥22.
- Clinical indications for coronary revascularization (angina refractory to optimal medical treatment, ischemia on non-invasive tests, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction)
Who cannot join
- Previous heart surgery of any kind, including CABG
- Previous surgery involving the left pleural space
- The need for concomitant vascular or other cardiac surgery during index procedure (valve surgery, aortic surgery, left ventricular aneurysmectomy, endarterectomy, etc.)
- Chronic lung disease
- Chronic kidney disease determined as eGFR<60 ml/min/sq.m
- Failure to give informed consent.
- Life expectancy due to non-heart disease is less than 1 year.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Russia1 site
Cardiology Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences
Tomsk, Tomsk Oblast, 634012
About this study
Official title: Functional Efficacy of iFR-guided Hybrid Coronary Revascularization vs Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: a Randomized Controlled Study
The purpose of the study is to compare iFR-guided hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) and traditional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in terms of a functional efficacy of revascularization assessed by weighted average of iFRs measured 12 month post-procedure in the qualified coronary arteries (all arteries with at least one significant lesion and diameter >1.5 mm at baseline). The true significance of coronary artery disease (CAD) is reflected by the pressure gradients in coronary arteries showing the actual drop in myocardial perfusion whereas the degree of anatomical narrowing in fact only indicates a potential for hemodynamical changes that also depend on vessel compliance, distal vascular resistance, and collateral circulation. Then, the true effect of myocardial revascularization as treatment of CAD should be likewise assessed by measuring residual pressure gradients in coronary arteries remaining after revascularization, i.e. as the functional efficacy in analogy to the functional significance of CAD.
Read the detailed description
New generation of drug eluting stents (DES) have been shown to have better long-term patency rates than the vein grafts utilized in conventional CABG. Then, it may be expected that hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combining minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting of left anterior descending (LAD) artery by left internal mammary artery (LIMA) and stenting of non-LAD coronary arteries with the new generation DESs may have superior efficacy and safety compared to conventional CABG in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). The true significance of CAD is reflected by the pressure gradients in coronary arteries that show actual changes in coronary blood flow and myocardial perfusion whereas the degree of anatomical narrowing only indicates a potential for the hemodynamical changes that also depend on vessel compliance, distal vascular resistance, and collateral circulation. Then, the true effect of myocardial revascularization as treatment of CAD should be likewise assessed by measuring residual pressure gradients in coronary arteries after revascularization, i.e. as the functional efficacy in analogy to the functional significance of CAD. For multi-vessel disease the summary hemodynamic effectiveness of revascularization may be captured either by continuous variable, e.g. averaged magnitude of the post-procedural pressure gradients in the qualified arteries or by categorical index, e.g. a relative proportion of the arteries with significant post-procedural pressure gradients among the qualified arteries both preferably weighted for their significance in myocardial blood supply. For comprehensive comparison of the revascularization strategies the qualified arteries should include all arteries/branches that had significant disease at baseline and were amenable to treatment with at least one of the revascularization methods, e.g. with at least one stenosis >70% and diameter >1.5 mm. The categorical measure of the functional efficacy may also be considered a measure of the functional completeness of revascularization in analogy to the conventional anatomical completeness. This functional completeness in terms of removal of all significant pressure gradients in coronary arteries is expected to be superior to anatomical completeness for assessing the procedural success of the intervention because the successful grafting/stent implantation does not guarantee the permanent removal of the pressure gradients, which may still persist due to development of intimal hyperplasia along the suture line of surgical anastomosis or stent underexpansion/edge dissection.
The primary purpose of the study is to assess whether iFR -guided HCR done as the staged procedure with LIMA-LAD MIDCAB at first stage, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-LAD arteries at the second stage, is superior to conventional CABG in terms of the functional efficacy of revascularization assessed by the weighted average of iFRs measured 12 month post-procedure in all coronary arteries with at least one significant stenosis (>70% for CABG group, iFR ≤ 0.89 for iFR-guided HCR) and diameter ≥1.5 mm at baseline. For proximal lesions in major coronary arteries - LAD, circumflex (Cx), and right coronary artery (RCA) - the simple weights 0.5, 0.25, 0.25 will be used, respectively. For other lesions the Duke jeopardy scores will be used instead. Measurement of functional efficacy at 12 month post-procedure will allow assessment of the final result of the intervention after complete vessel healing, endothelialization of the stents, on stable antithrombotic treatment, etc. Also, this study will assess whether achieving the functional completeness of revascularization described above in addition to the anatomical completeness of the procedure may further improve the treatment outcomes in patients with multivessel CAD. Specifically, the investigators will assess the relationship between the functional completeness of the revascularization and the occurrence of the MACCE over 1, 3, and 5 years following randomization in the patients with anatomically complete procedures. Finally, the hypothesis will be tested that iFR-guided HCR has better overall safety than CABG. Whereas, compared to CABG HCR is associated with less frequent perioperative complications, blood transfusions, shorter ICU and hospital stays, these benefits of less invasive treatment may be overridden by the additional complications of stenting, e.g. acute stent thrombosis, dissection, arterial perforation/rupture and others. With iFR guidance of the HCR these additional complications of PCI are expected to be less frequent and the whole procedure - more safe.
- Conditions
- Coronary Artery Disease
- Being tested
- Hybrid coronary revascularization, Coronary artery bypass grafting
- Keywords
- Myocardial Revascularization, Coronary Artery Bypass, Internal Mammary-Coronary Artery Anastomosis, Drug-Eluting Stents
- Medical subject headings
- Coronary Artery Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Hybrid coronary revascularizationProcedure or surgery
A staged procedure with a minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting of left anterior descending artery by left internal mammary artery (LIMA-LAD MIDCAB) at first stage, and percutaneous stenting of iFR-significant lesions in non-LAD arteries at the second stage
Coronary artery bypass graftingProcedure or surgery
A conventional procedure of median thoracotomy with on-pump bypass grafting of left anterior descending artery by left internal mammary artery and saphenous vein grafting of circumflex and/or right coronary artery
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) | Experimental | Patients with multi-vessel CAD randomized to hybrid coronary revascularization Receives: Procedure: Hybrid coronary revascularization |
| Conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) | Active comparator | Patients with multi-vessel CAD randomized to conventional CABG Receives: Procedure: Coronary artery bypass grafting |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Functional efficacy of revascularization
Will be assessed as weighted average of the residual (12 month post-procedure) iFRs in coronary arteries that had at least one significant stenosis (>70% for CABG group, iFR ≤ 0.89 for iFR-guided HCR) and diameter ≥1.5 mm at baseline. In case of proximal lesions of LAD, Cx, RCA, the coefficients 0.5; 0.25; 0.25 will be used, respectively. For other lesions Duke jeopardy scores will be used instead (for this scoring, the coronary tree is divided into 6 segments:1) LAD beyond the diagonal branch take-off, 2) major diagonal branch of the LAD, 3) major septal branch of the LAD, 4) Cx beyond the major obtuse margin branch take-off, 5) major obtuse margin branch, and 6) the posterior descending branch of the RCA. Each such segment is assigned 2 points with a possible maximum of 12/12.
Measured: From baseline to 12 month
Secondary outcomes (17)
Between-group difference in the number of major cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE)
The components of MACCE will be all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization
Measured: From baseline to 12 months, 3, and 5 years
Between-group difference in the functional efficacy of the revascularization of non-LAD arteries
Will be assessed as weighted average of the residual (12 month post-procedure) iFRs in all non-LAD coronary arteries with at least one significant stenosis (>70% for CABG group, iFR ≤ 0.89 for iFR-guided HCR) and diameter ≥1.5 mm at baseline
Measured: From baseline to 12 months
Between-group difference in the functional completeness of the revascularization
The functional completeness will be assessed as the proportion of the coronary arteries with significant iFR at12 month post-procedure among the arteries with at least one significant stenosis (>70% for CABG group, iFR ≤ 0.89 for iFR-guided HCR) and diameter ≥1.5 mm at baseline
Measured: From baseline to 12 months
Between-group difference in the number of serious adverse events (other than MACCE)
Any untoward medical occurrence that is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity
Measured: From baseline to 12 months
Between-group difference in the frequency of serious adverse events in the peri-operative period
Any untoward medical occurrence that is life-threatening, requires prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity.
For HCR - a combination of the events during both surgical and endovascular stages (including stent thrombosis, dissections/ perforations/ruptures of coronary arteries, contrast nephropathy, pseudoaneurysms requiring surgical treatment)
Measured: From the day of procedure to one week post-procedure
Between-group difference in the operation duration
Duration of the operation in minutes
Measured: From the time of intubation to the time of discharge from operating room assessed up to 24 hours
Between-group difference in the mechanical ventilation time
A total inspiratory time when the tidal volume was delivered or the pressure was maintained
Measured: From the intubation to complete withdrawal of ventilation support assessed up to 1 week
Between-group difference in ICU stay
A total time spent in intensive care unit in hours
Measured: From the time of discharge from operating room to the time of discharge from ICU assessed up to 30 days
Between-group difference in the number of patients who undergone re-operation for bleeding
Repeat surgery needed for bleeding or cardiac tamponade either before hospital discharge or between hospital discharge and within 30 days of their index operation if discharged earlier than 30 days
Measured: From the index operation to 30 days post-procedure
Between-group difference in the number of patients who received blood transfusion(s)
Any transfusion of blood or blood products
Measured: From the day of CABG to hospital discharge assessed up to 30 days
Between-group difference in the number of patients with wound infection
Purulent discharge from the surgical site, wound or drain placed in the wound with at least one of the following signs/symptoms - pain or tenderness, localised swelling, or redness/heat
Measured: From the end of surgery to hospital discharge assessed up to 30 days
Between-group difference in hospital stay
A total number of days spent in hospital after surgery including PCI stage
Measured: From the day of CABG to the discharge after PCI assessed up to 2 months
Between-group difference in the number of repeated revascularizations
Any surgical or endovascular revascularization
Measured: From baseline to 12 months
Between-group difference in the number of hospitalizations
Any hospital stay longer than 24 hours
Measured: From baseline to 12 months follow-up
Between-group difference in angina score
Canadian Cardiovascular Society Classification
Measured: 12 months after the procedure
Between-group difference in the quality of life
Will be assessed using EQ-5D instrument
Measured: 12 months after the procedure
Effect of proportion of coronary arteries with significant iFR 12 month post-procedure among the arteries with ≥1 significant stenosis and diameter ≥1.5 mm at baseline on probability of MACCE in patients with anatomically complete procedures
Effect of functional completeness of revascularization on occurrence of MACCE evaluated by logistic regression model
Measured: 1, 3, and 5 years following randomization
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Jan 2021
- Study start15 Jan 2021
- Primary completion5 May 2023
- Study completion5 May 2023
Why it stopped: The local research project is cancelled because of the organizational issues
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Coronary Artery DiseaseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 13 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Tomsk National Research Medical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Stanislav Pekarskiy, Tomsk National Research Medical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
- Investigators
- Stanislav Pekarskiy, Principal investigator, Cardiology Research Institute, TNRMCYuri Vecherskiy, Principal investigator, Cardiology Research Institute, TNRMCBoris Kozlov, Study director, Cardiology Research Institute, TNRMC
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04698460
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 005/e-4
- Acronym
- FUNFARE
- Status last verified
- May 2023
- First submitted
- 4 Dec 2020
- Last updated
- 8 May 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 May 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Functional Efficacy of iFR-guided Hybrid Coronary Revascularization vs Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: a Randomized Controlled Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04698460
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- FUNFARE / 005/e-4
- Conditions
- Coronary Artery Disease
- Keywords
- Myocardial Revascularization, Coronary Artery Bypass, Internal Mammary-Coronary Artery Anastomosis, Drug-Eluting Stents
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- TerminatedReason stopped: The local research project is cancelled because of the organizational issues
- Enrolment
- 13 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Tomsk National Research Medical Center of the Russian Academy of SciencesUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 15 Jan 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 5 May 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 5 May 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Jan 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of the study is to compare iFR-guided hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) and traditional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in terms of a functional efficacy of revascularization assessed by weighted average of iFRs measured 12 month post-procedure in the qualified coronary arteries (all arteries with at least one significant lesion and diameter >1.5 mm at baseline). The true significance of coronary artery disease (CAD) is reflected by the pressure gradients in coronary arteries showing the actual drop in myocardial perfusion whereas the degree of anatomical narrowing in fact only indicates a potential for hemodynamical changes that also depend on vessel compliance, distal vascular resistance, and collateral circulation. Then, the true effect of myocardial revascularization as treatment of CAD should be likewise assessed by measuring residual pressure gradients in coronary arteries remaining after revascularization, i.e. as the functional efficacy in analogy to the functional significance of CAD.
Detailed description
New generation of drug eluting stents (DES) have been shown to have better long-term patency rates than the vein grafts utilized in conventional CABG. Then, it may be expected that hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combining minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting of left anterior descending (LAD) artery by left internal mammary artery (LIMA) and stenting of non-LAD coronary arteries with the new generation DESs may have superior efficacy and safety compared to conventional CABG in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). The true significance of CAD is reflected by the pressure gradients in coronary arteries that show actual changes in coronary blood flow and myocardial perfusion whereas the degree of anatomical narrowing only indicates a potential for the hemodynamical changes that also depend on vessel compliance, distal vascular resistance, and collateral circulation. Then, the true effect of myocardial revascularization as treatment of CAD should be likewise assessed by measuring residual pressure gradients in coronary arteries after revascularization, i.e. as the functional efficacy in analogy to the functional significance of CAD. For multi-vessel disease the summary hemodynamic effectiveness of revascularization may be captured either by continuous variable, e.g. averaged magnitude of the post-procedural pressure gradients in the qualified arteries or by categorical index, e.g. a relative proportion of the arteries with significant post-procedural pressure gradients among the qualified arteries both preferably weighted for their significance in myocardial blood supply. For comprehensive comparison of the revascularization strategies the qualified arteries should include all arteries/branches that had significant disease at baseline and were amenable to treatment with at least one of the revascularization methods, e.g. with at least one stenosis >70% and diameter >1.5 mm. The categorical measure of the functional efficacy may also be considered a measure of the functional completeness of revascularization in analogy to the conventional anatomical completeness. This functional completeness in terms of removal of all significant pressure gradients in coronary arteries is expected to be superior to anatomical completeness for assessing the procedural success of the intervention because the successful grafting/stent implantation does not guarantee the permanent removal of the pressure gradients, which may still persist due to development of intimal hyperplasia along the suture line of surgical anastomosis or stent underexpansion/edge dissection.
The primary purpose of the study is to assess whether iFR -guided HCR done as the staged procedure with LIMA-LAD MIDCAB at first stage, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-LAD arteries at the second stage, is superior to conventional CABG in terms of the functional efficacy of revascularization assessed by the weighted average of iFRs measured 12 month post-procedure in all coronary arteries with at least one significant stenosis (>70% for CABG group, iFR ≤ 0.89 for iFR-guided HCR) and diameter ≥1.5 mm at baseline. For proximal lesions in major coronary arteries - LAD, circumflex (Cx), and right coronary artery (RCA) - the simple weights 0.5, 0.25, 0.25 will be used, respectively. For other lesions the Duke jeopardy scores will be used instead. Measurement of functional efficacy at 12 month post-procedure will allow assessment of the final result of the intervention after complete vessel healing, endothelialization of the stents, on stable antithrombotic treatment, etc. Also, this study will assess whether achieving the functional completeness of revascularization described above in addition to the anatomical completeness of the procedure may further improve the treatment outcomes in patients with multivessel CAD. Specifically, the investigators will assess the relationship between the functional completeness of the revascularization and the occurrence of the MACCE over 1, 3, and 5 years following randomization in the patients with anatomically complete procedures. Finally, the hypothesis will be tested that iFR-guided HCR has better overall safety than CABG. Whereas, compared to CABG HCR is associated with less frequent perioperative complications, blood transfusions, shorter ICU and hospital stays, these benefits of less invasive treatment may be overridden by the additional complications of stenting, e.g. acute stent thrombosis, dissection, arterial perforation/rupture and others. With iFR guidance of the HCR these additional complications of PCI are expected to be less frequent and the whole procedure - more safe.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) | Experimental | Procedure: Hybrid coronary revascularizationPatients with multi-vessel CAD randomized to hybrid coronary revascularization |
| Conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) | Active comparator | Procedure: Coronary artery bypass graftingPatients with multi-vessel CAD randomized to conventional CABG |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 40 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Signed written informed consent
- Stenosis ≥70% of the LAD and/or ≥50% of left main coronary artery in combination with at least one stenosis ≥70% of the Cx or RCA, suitable for revascularization (decided by a heart team)
- SYNTAX value ≥22.
- Clinical indications for coronary revascularization (angina refractory to optimal medical treatment, ischemia on non-invasive tests, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction)
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Previous heart surgery of any kind, including CABG
- Previous surgery involving the left pleural space
- The need for concomitant vascular or other cardiac surgery during index procedure (valve surgery, aortic surgery, left ventricular aneurysmectomy, endarterectomy, etc.)
- Chronic lung disease
- Chronic kidney disease determined as eGFR<60 ml/min/sq.m
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Hybrid coronary revascularizationA staged procedure with a minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting of left anterior descending artery by left internal mammary artery (LIMA-LAD MIDCAB) at first stage, and percutaneous stenting of iFR-significant lesions in non-LAD arteries at the second stage | Procedure or surgery | Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) |
| Coronary artery bypass graftingA conventional procedure of median thoracotomy with on-pump bypass grafting of left anterior descending artery by left internal mammary artery and saphenous vein grafting of circumflex and/or right coronary artery | Procedure or surgery | Conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) |
Primary outcome
Functional efficacy of revascularization
Time frame: From baseline to 12 month
Will be assessed as weighted average of the residual (12 month post-procedure) iFRs in coronary arteries that had at least one significant stenosis (>70% for CABG group, iFR ≤ 0.89 for iFR-guided HCR) and diameter ≥1.5 mm at baseline. In case of proximal lesions of LAD, Cx, RCA, the coefficients 0.5; 0.25; 0.25 will be used, respectively. For other lesions Duke jeopardy scores will be used instead (for this scoring, the coronary tree is divided into 6 segments:1) LAD beyond the diagonal branch take-off, 2) major diagonal branch of the LAD, 3) major septal branch of the LAD, 4) Cx beyond the major obtuse margin branch take-off, 5) major obtuse margin branch, and 6) the posterior descending branch of the RCA. Each such segment is assigned 2 points with a possible maximum of 12/12.
17 secondary outcomes
Between-group difference in the number of major cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE)
Time frame: From baseline to 12 months, 3, and 5 years
Between-group difference in the functional efficacy of the revascularization of non-LAD arteries
Time frame: From baseline to 12 months
Between-group difference in the functional completeness of the revascularization
Time frame: From baseline to 12 months
Between-group difference in the number of serious adverse events (other than MACCE)
Time frame: From baseline to 12 months
Between-group difference in the frequency of serious adverse events in the peri-operative period
Time frame: From the day of procedure to one week post-procedure
Between-group difference in the operation duration
Time frame: From the time of intubation to the time of discharge from operating room assessed up to 24 hours
Between-group difference in the mechanical ventilation time
Time frame: From the intubation to complete withdrawal of ventilation support assessed up to 1 week
Between-group difference in ICU stay
Time frame: From the time of discharge from operating room to the time of discharge from ICU assessed up to 30 days
Between-group difference in the number of patients who undergone re-operation for bleeding
Time frame: From the index operation to 30 days post-procedure
Between-group difference in the number of patients who received blood transfusion(s)
Time frame: From the day of CABG to hospital discharge assessed up to 30 days
Between-group difference in the number of patients with wound infection
Time frame: From the end of surgery to hospital discharge assessed up to 30 days
Between-group difference in hospital stay
Time frame: From the day of CABG to the discharge after PCI assessed up to 2 months
Between-group difference in the number of repeated revascularizations
Time frame: From baseline to 12 months
Between-group difference in the number of hospitalizations
Time frame: From baseline to 12 months follow-up
Between-group difference in angina score
Time frame: 12 months after the procedure
Between-group difference in the quality of life
Time frame: 12 months after the procedure
Effect of proportion of coronary arteries with significant iFR 12 month post-procedure among the arteries with ≥1 significant stenosis and diameter ≥1.5 mm at baseline on probability of MACCE in patients with anatomically complete procedures
Time frame: 1, 3, and 5 years following randomization
Results and safety
The study was stopped early (reason given: The local research project is cancelled because of the organizational issues). Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 May 2023.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Coronary Artery Disease
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Stress Ball Use During Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal After Coronary Angiography
Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal, Stress Ball
Active, not recruiting
Shockwave™ vs Surgical Endarterectomy for Calcified Severe Common Femoral Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Efficacy, Safety and Long-Term Outcomes
Common Femoral Artery Stenosis, Calcification; Heart
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Roxadustat and Myocardial Injury After Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
Coronary Artery Disease, Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
RecruitingObservational study
Preoperative Gastric Ultrasound and Left Ventricular Function in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
Coronary Artery Disease, Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction
Active, not recruiting
The OCTOBER Trial - European Trial on Optical Coherence Tomography Optimized Bifurcation Event Reduction (OCTOBER)
Ischaemic Heart Disease, Ischemic Heart Disease
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Stanislav Pekarskiy principal investigator
Cardiology Research Institute, TNRMC
Yuri Vecherskiy principal investigator
Cardiology Research Institute, TNRMC
Boris Kozlov study director
Cardiology Research Institute, TNRMC
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Hybrid coronary revascularization and Coronary artery bypass grafting in people with Coronary Artery Disease, run by Tomsk National Research Medical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences at 1 site in Russia.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: stopped early, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 May 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Russia. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was stopped early (reason given: The local research project is cancelled because of the organizational issues). Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Functional efficacy of revascularization (time frame: From baseline to 12 month). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 May 2023.