Symptoms as a Predictor of the Placebo-Controlled Efficacy of PCI in Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Placebo-controlled evidence from ORBITA-2 found that percutaneous cutaneous intervention (PCI) in stable coronary artery disease with little or no antianginal medication relieved angina, but residual symptoms persisted in many. The reason for this was unclear. OBJECTIVES: ; This ORBITA-2 secondary analysis investigates the relationship between presenting symptoms and disease severity (anatomic, non-invasive, and invasive ischemia) and the ability of symptoms to predict the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI. METHODS: Pre-randomization symptom severity and nature were assessed using the ORBITA smartphone application and symptom and quality of life questionnaires including the Rose angina questionnaire. Disease severity was assessed using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), stress echocardiography, fractional flow reserve (FFR), and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). Bayesian ordinal regression was used. RESULTS: At pre-randomization, the median number of daily angina episodes was 0.8 (0.4-1.6), 64% had Rose angina, QCA diameter stenosis 61 (49-74), stress echocardiography score 1.0 (0.0-2.7), FFR 0.63 (0.49-0.75), and iFR 0.78 (0.55-0.87). There was little relationship between symptom severity and nature and disease severity: angina symptom score with QCA ordinal correlation coefficient 0.06 (95% CrI 0.00 to 0.08); stress echocardiography 0.09 (95% CrI 0.02 to 0.10); FFR 0.04 (95% CrI -0.03 to 0.07); and iFR 0.04 (95% CrI -0.01 to 0.07). However, Rose angina and guideline-based typical angina were strong predictors of placebo-controlled PCI efficacy (angina symptom score: OR 1.9, 95% CrI 1.6 to 2.1, Pr(Interaction)=99.9% and OR 1.8, 95% CrI 1.6 to 2.1, Pr(Interaction)=99.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although symptom severity and nature were poorly associated with disease severity, the nature of symptoms powerfully predicted the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI.

N-of-1 Trial of Angina Verification Before Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: In stable coronary artery disease, 30% to 60% of patients remain symptomatic despite successful revascularization. Perhaps not all symptoms reported by a patient with myocardial ischemia are, in fact, angina. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether independent symptom verification using a placebo-controlled ischemic stimulus could distinguish which patients achieve greatest symptom relief from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: ORBITA-STAR was a multicenter, n-of-1, placebo-controlled study in patients undergoing single-vessel PCI for stable symptoms. Participants underwent 4 episodes (60 seconds each) of low-pressure balloon occlusion across their coronary stenosis, randomly paired with 4 episodes of placebo inflation. Following each episode, patients reported the similarity of the induced symptom in comparison with their usual symptom. The similarity score ranged from -10 (placebo replicated the symptom more than balloon occlusion) to +10 (balloon occlusion exactly replicated the symptom). The primary endpoint was the ability of the similarity score to predict symptom relief with PCI. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were recruited, aged 62.9 ± 8.6 years. The median fractional flow reserve was 0.68 (Q1-Q3: 0.57-0.79), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.80 (Q1-Q3: 0.48-0.89). The median similarity score was 3 (Q1-Q3: 0.875-5.25). The similarity score was a strong predictor of symptom improvement following PCI: a patient with an upper quartile similarity score of 5.25 was significantly more likely to have lower angina frequency at follow-up (OR: 8.01; 95% credible interval: 2.39-15.86) than a patient with a lower quartile similarity score of 0.875 (OR: 1.31; 95% credible interval: 0.71-1.99), Pr(difference) >99.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Similarity score powerfully predicted symptom improvement from PCI. These data lay the foundation for independent symptom mapping to target PCI to those patients most likely to benefit. (Systematic Trial of Angina Assessment Before Revascularization [ORBITA-STAR]; NCT04280575).

Placebo Control and Blinding in Randomized Trials of Procedural Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression.

Importance: Unlike medications, procedural interventions are rarely trialed against placebo prior to becoming accepted in clinical practice. When placebo-controlled trials are eventually conducted, procedural interventions may be less effective than previously believed. Objective: To investigate the importance of including a placebo arm in trials of surgical and interventional procedures by comparing effect sizes from trials of the same procedure that do and do not include a placebo arm. Data Sources: Searches of MEDLINE and Embase identified all placebo-controlled trials for procedural interventions in any specialty of medicine and surgery from inception to March 31, 2019. A secondary search identified randomized clinical trials assessing the same intervention, condition, and end point but without a placebo arm for paired comparison. Study Selection: Placebo-controlled trials of anatomically site-specific procedures requiring skin incision or endoscopic techniques were eligible for inclusion; these were then matched to trials without placebo control that fell within prespecified limits of heterogeneity. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Random-effects meta-regression, with placebo and blinding as a fixed effect and intervention and end point grouping as random effects, was used to calculate the impact of placebo control for each end point. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points were examined in prespecified subgroups: patient-reported or health care professional-assessed outcomes, quality of life, pain, blood pressure, exercise-related outcomes, recurrent bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Results: Ninety-seven end points were matched from 72 blinded, placebo-controlled trials (hereafter, blinded) and 55 unblinded trials without placebo control (hereafter, unblinded), including 111 500 individual patient end points. Unblinded trials had larger standardized effect sizes than blinded trials for exercise-related outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.89; P < .001) and quality-of-life (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.53; P = .003) and health care professional-assessed end points (SMD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61; P < .001). The placebo effect accounted for 88.1%, 55.2%, and 61.3% of the observed unblinded effect size for these end points, respectively. There was no significant difference between unblinded and blinded trials for patient-reported end points (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.64; P = .07), blood pressure (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.62; P = .15), all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.72; P = .36), pain (SMD, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.57; P = .91), or recurrent bleeding events (OR, -0.12; 95% CI, -1.11 to 0.88; P = .88). Conclusions and Relevance: The magnitude of the placebo effect found in this systematic review and meta-regression was dependent on the end point. Placebo control in trials of procedural interventions had the greatest impact on exercise-related, quality-of-life, and health care professional-assessed end points. Randomized clinical trials of procedural interventions may consider placebo control accordingly.

Coronary sinus reducer for the treatment of refractory angina (ORBITA-COSMIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is proposed to reduce angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease by improving myocardial perfusion. We aimed to measure its efficacy, compared with placebo, on myocardial ischaemia reduction and symptom improvement. METHODS: ORBITA-COSMIC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted at six UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older with angina, stable coronary artery disease, ischaemia, and no further options for treatment were eligible. All patients completed a quantitative adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan, symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires, and a treadmill exercise test before entering a 2-week symptom assessment phase, in which patients reported their angina symptoms using a smartphone application (ORBITA-app). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either CSR or placebo. Both participants and investigators were masked to study assignment. After the CSR implantation or placebo procedure, patients entered a 6-month blinded follow-up phase in which they reported their daily symptoms in the ORBITA-app. At 6 months, all assessments were repeated. The primary outcome was myocardial blood flow in segments designated ischaemic at enrolment during the adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan. The primary symptom outcome was the number of daily angina episodes. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat and followed Bayesian methodology. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04892537, and completed. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2021, and June 28, 2023, 61 patients were enrolled, of whom 51 (44 [86%] male; seven [14%] female) were randomly assigned to either the CSR group (n=25) or the placebo group (n=26). Of these, 50 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (24 in the CSR group and 26 in the placebo group). 454 (57%) of 800 imaged cardiac segments were ischaemic at enrolment, with a median stress myocardial blood flow of 1·08 mL/min per g (IQR 0·77-1·41). Myocardial blood flow in ischaemic segments did not improve with CSR compared with placebo (difference 0·06 mL/min per g [95% CrI -0·09 to 0·20]; Pr(Benefit)=78·8%). The number of daily angina episodes was reduced with CSR compared with placebo (OR 1·40 [95% CrI 1·08 to 1·83]; Pr(Benefit)=99·4%). There were two CSR embolisation events in the CSR group, and no acute coronary syndrome events or deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: ORBITA-COSMIC found no evidence that the CSR improved transmural myocardial perfusion, but the CSR did improve angina compared with placebo. These findings provide evidence for the use of CSR as a further antianginal option for patients with stable coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, St Mary's Coronary Flow Trust, British Heart Foundation.

Physiological Assessment with iFR prior to FFR Measurement in Left Main Disease.

Despite guideline-based recommendation of the interchangeable use of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization decision-making, iFR/FFR could demonstrate different physiological or clinical outcomes in some specific patient or lesion subsets. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of difference between iFR and FFR-guided revascularization decision-making on clinical outcomes in patients with left main disease (LMD). In this international multicenter registry of LMD with physiological interrogation, we identified 275 patients in whom physiological assessment was performed with both iFR/FFR. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed for both iFR/FFR to predict MACE in respective patients in whom revascularization was deferred and performed. In 153 patients of revascularization deferral, MACE occurred in 17.0% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR to predict MACE were 0.88 (specificity:0.74; sensitivity:0.65) and 0.76 (specificity:0.81; sensitivity:0.46), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for iFR than FFR (0.74; 95%CI 0.62-0.85 vs. 0.62; 95%CI 0.48-0.75; p = 0.012). In 122 patients of coronary revascularization, MACE occurred in 13.1% patients. The optimal cut-off values of iFR and FFR were 0.92 (specificity:0.93; sensitivity:0.25) and 0.81 (specificity:0.047; sensitivity:1.00), respectively. The AUCs were not significantly different between iFR and FFR (0.57; 95%CI 0.40-0.73 vs. 0.46; 95%CI 0.31-0.61; p = 0.43). While neither baseline iFR nor FFR was predictive of MACE in patients in whom revascularization was performed, iFR-guided deferral seemed to be safer than FFR-guided deferral.

Randomized Trial of Remote Assessment of Patients After an Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine programs can provide remote diagnostic information to aid clinical decisions that could optimize care and reduce unplanned readmissions post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS). OBJECTIVES: TELE-ACS (Remote Acute Assessment of Patients With High Cardiovascular Risk Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome) is a randomized controlled trial that aims to compare a telemedicine-based approach vs standard care in patients following ACS. METHODS: Patients were suitable for inclusion with at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor and presenting with ACS and were randomized (1:1) before discharge. The primary outcome was time to first readmission at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits, major adverse cardiovascular events, and patient-reported symptoms. The primary analysis was performed according to intention to treat. RESULTS: A total of 337 patients were randomized from January 2022 to April 2023, with a 3.6% drop-out rate. The mean age was 58.1 years. There was a reduced rate of readmission over 6 months (HR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.13-0.44; P < 0.001) and ED attendance (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.40-0.89) in the telemedicine arm, and fewer unplanned coronary revascularizations (3% in telemedicine arm vs 9% in standard therapy arm). The occurrence of chest pain (9% vs 24%), breathlessness (21% vs 39%), and dizziness (6% vs 18%) at 6 months was lower in the telemedicine group. CONCLUSIONS: The TELE-ACS study has shown that a telemedicine-based approach for the management of patients following ACS was associated with a reduction in hospital readmission, ED visits, unplanned coronary revascularization, and patient-reported symptoms. (Telemedicine in High-Risk Cardiovascular Patients Post-ACS [TELE-ACS]; NCT05015634).

Angina pectoris 2023: With and without obstructive coronary artery disease: Epidemiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.

Angina contributes to significant morbidity worldwide. The evaluation of angina is variable and complicated by multiple factors. The diagnosis is often focussed on epicardial disease despite the knowledge that chest pain can be due to cardiac, non-cardiac, macro, and microvascular causes. Standardised diagnostic pathways and novel approaches to angina assessment may offer the opportunity to improve our understanding of angina and apply a personalised approach to treatment.

The ability of contemporary cardiologists to judge the ischemic impact of a coronary lesion visually

BACKGROUND: Landmark trials showed that invasive pressure measurement (Fractional Flow Reserve, FFR) was a better guide to coronary stenting than visual assessment. However, present-day interventionists have benefited from extensive research and personal experience of mapping anatomy to hemodynamics. AIMS: To determine if visual assessment of the angiogram performs as well as invasive measurement of coronary physiology. METHODS: 25 interventional cardiologists independently visually assessed the single vessel coronary disease of 200 randomized participants in The Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina trial (ORBITA). They gave a visual prediction of the FFR and Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio (iFR), denoted vFFR and viFR respectively. Each judged each lesion on 2 occasions, so that every lesion had 50 vFFR, and 50 viFR assessments. The group consensus visual estimates (vFFR-group and viFR-group) and individual cardiologists' visual estimates (vFFR-individual and viFR-individual) were tested alongside invasively measured FFR and iFR for their ability to predict the placebo-controlled reduction in stress echo ischemia with stenting. RESULTS: Placebo-controlled ischemia improvement with stenting was predicted by vFFR-group (p < 0.0001) and viFR-group (p < 0.0001), vFFR-individual (p < 0.0001) and viFR-individual (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the predictive performance of the group visual estimates and their invasive counterparts: p = 0.53 for vFFR vs FFR and p = 0.56 for viFR vs iFR. CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of the angiogram by contemporary experts, provides significant additional information on the amount of ischaemia which can be relieved by placebo-controlled stenting in single vessel coronary artery disease.

A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the coronary sinus Reducer in refractory angina: design and rationale of the ORBITA-COSMIC trial.

The coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) is an hourglass-shaped device which creates an artificial stenosis in the coronary sinus. Whilst placebo-controlled data show an improvement in angina, these results are unreplicated and are the subject of further confirmatory research. The mechanism of action of this unintuitive therapy is unknown. The Coronary Sinus Reducer Objective Impact on Symptoms, MRI Ischaemia, and Microvascular Resistance (ORBITA-COSMIC) trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial investigating the efficacy of the CSR. Patients with (i) established epicardial coronary artery disease, (ii) angina on maximally tolerated antianginal medication, (iii) evidence of myocardial ischaemia and (iv) no further options for percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting will be enrolled. Upon enrolment, angina and quality-of-life questionnaires, treadmill exercise testing and quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging will be performed. Participants will record their symptoms daily on a smartphone application throughout the trial. After a 2-week symptom assessment phase, participants will be randomised in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory to CSR or a placebo procedure. After 6 months of blinded follow-up, all prerandomisation tests will be repeated. A prespecified subgroup will undergo invasive coronary physiology assessment at prerandomisation and follow-up. The primary outcome is stress myocardial blood flow on CMR. Secondary outcomes include angina frequency, quality of life and treadmill exercise time. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04892537).

The ability of contemporary cardiologists to judge the ischemic impact of a coronary lesion visually.

BACKGROUND: Landmark trials showed that invasive pressure measurement (Fractional Flow Reserve, FFR) was a better guide to coronary stenting than visual assessment. However, present-day interventionists have benefited from extensive research and personal experience of mapping anatomy to hemodynamics. AIMS: To determine if visual assessment of the angiogram performs as well as invasive measurement of coronary physiology. METHODS: 25 interventional cardiologists independently visually assessed the single vessel coronary disease of 200 randomized participants in The Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina trial (ORBITA). They gave a visual prediction of the FFR and Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio (iFR), denoted vFFR and viFR respectively. Each judged each lesion on 2 occasions, so that every lesion had 50 vFFR, and 50 viFR assessments. The group consensus visual estimates (vFFR-group and viFR-group) and individual cardiologists' visual estimates (vFFR-individual and viFR-individual) were tested alongside invasively measured FFR and iFR for their ability to predict the placebo-controlled reduction in stress echo ischemia with stenting. RESULTS: Placebo-controlled ischemia improvement with stenting was predicted by vFFR-group (p < 0.0001) and viFR-group (p < 0.0001), vFFR-individual (p < 0.0001) and viFR-individual (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the predictive performance of the group visual estimates and their invasive counterparts: p = 0.53 for vFFR vs FFR and p = 0.56 for viFR vs iFR. CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of the angiogram by contemporary experts, provides significant additional information on the amount of ischaemia which can be relieved by placebo-controlled stenting in single vessel coronary artery disease.

Physiology and Intravascular Imaging Coregistration-Best of all Worlds?

Percutaneous coronary intervention is increasingly guided by coronary physiology and optimized using intravascular imaging. Pressure-based measurements determine the significance of a stenosis using hyperemic or nonhyperemic pressure ratios (eg, the instantaneous wave-free ratio). Intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography provide cross-sectional and longitudinal detail regarding plaque composition and vessel characteristics. These facilitate lesion preparation and optimization of stent sizing and positioning. This review explores the evidence-base and practical aspects of coregistering pressure gradient assessment and intravascular imaging with angiography. We then discuss gaps in the evidence and what is needed to help integrate these techniques into clinical practice.

Regional and temporal variations of spontaneous coronary artery dissection care according to consensus recommendations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The first expert consensus documents on management of patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) were published in 2018. Worldwide quality of care, as measured by adherence to these recommendations, has not been systematically reviewed. We aim to review the proportion of patients with SCAD receiving consensus recommendations globally, regionally and, determine differences in practice before and after 2018. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review was performed by searching four main databases (Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, CINAHL) from their inception to 16 June 2022. Studies were selected if they included patients with SCAD and reported at least one of the consensus document recommendations. 53 studies, n=8456 patients (mean 50.1 years, 90.6% female) were included. On random effects meta-analysis, 92.1% (95% CI 89.3 to 94.8) received at least one antiplatelet, 78.0% (CI 73.5 to 82.4) received beta-blockers, 58.7% (CI 52.3 to 65.1) received ACE inhibitors or aldosterone receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs), 54.4% (CI 45.4 to 63.5) were screened for fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD), and 70.2% (CI 60.8 to 79.5) were referred to cardiac rehabilitation. Except for cardiac rehabilitation referral and use of ACEIs/ARBs, there was significant heterogeneity in all other quality-of-care parameters, across geographical regions. No significant difference was observed in adherence to recommendations in studies published before and after 2018, except for lower cardiac rehabilitation referrals after 2018 (test of heterogeneity, p=0.012). CONCLUSION: There are significant variations globally in the management of patients with SCAD, particularly in FMD screening. Raising awareness about consensus recommendations and further prospective evidence about their effect on outcomes may help improve the quality of care for these patients.

A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed to reduce the symptoms of stable angina. Whether PCI relieves angina more than a placebo procedure in patients who are not receiving antianginal medication remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of PCI in patients with stable angina. Patients stopped all antianginal medications and underwent a 2-week symptom assessment phase before randomization. Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure and were followed for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the angina symptom score, which was calculated daily on the basis of the number of angina episodes that occurred on a given day, the number of antianginal medications prescribed on that day, and clinical events, including the occurrence of unblinding owing to unacceptable angina or acute coronary syndrome or death. Scores range from 0 to 79, with higher scores indicating worse health status with respect to angina. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients underwent randomization: 151 to the PCI group and 150 to the placebo group. The mean (±SD) age was 64±9 years, and 79% were men. Ischemia was present in one cardiac territory in 242 patients (80%), in two territories in 52 patients (17%), and in three territories in 7 patients (2%). In the target vessels, the median fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (interquartile range, 0.49 to 0.75), and the median instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (interquartile range, 0.55 to 0.87). At the 12-week follow-up, the mean angina symptom score was 2.9 in the PCI group and 5.6 in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.41 to 3.47; P<0.001). One patient in the placebo group had unacceptable angina leading to unblinding. Acute coronary syndromes occurred in 4 patients in the PCI group and in 6 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina who were receiving little or no antianginal medication and had objective evidence of ischemia, PCI resulted in a lower angina symptom score than a placebo procedure, indicating a better health status with respect to angina. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and others; ORBITA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03742050.).

Keeping it in the family: Use of the grandmother, mother, and child technique to navigate complex anatomy during Coronary sinus Reducer Implantation.

The Coronary Sinus Reducer® (CSR) is an emerging therapy for refractory angina recommended once no further pharmacologic or coronary revascularization options are available. We present the case of a 72-year-old man who underwent CSR implantation. Complex coronary sinus anatomy necessitated an innovative "grandmother, mother, and child" catheter approach.

Development of artificial intelligence tools for invasive Doppler-based coronary microvascular assessment.

Aims: Coronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment has proven clinical utility, but Doppler-based methods are sensitive to noise and operator bias, limiting their clinical applicability. The objective of the study is to expand the adoption of invasive Doppler CFR, through the development of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to automatically quantify coronary Doppler quality and track flow velocity. Methods and results: A neural network was trained on images extracted from coronary Doppler flow recordings to score signal quality and derive values for coronary flow velocity and CFR. The outputs were independently validated against expert consensus. Artificial intelligence successfully quantified Doppler signal quality, with high agreement with expert consensus (Spearman's rho: 0.94), and within individual experts. Artificial intelligence automatically tracked flow velocity with superior numerical agreement against experts, when compared with the current console algorithm [AI flow vs. expert flow bias -1.68 cm/s, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.13 to -1.23 cm/s, P < 0.001 with limits of agreement (LOA) -4.03 to 0.68 cm/s; console flow vs. expert flow bias -2.63 cm/s, 95% CI -3.74 to -1.52, P < 0.001, 95% LOA -8.45 to -3.19 cm/s]. Artificial intelligence yielded more precise CFR values [median absolute difference (MAD) against expert CFR: 4.0% for AI and 7.4% for console]. Artificial intelligence tracked lower-quality Doppler signals with lower variability (MAD against expert CFR 8.3% for AI and 16.7% for console). Conclusion: An AI-based system, trained by experts and independently validated, could assign a quality score to Doppler traces and derive coronary flow velocity and CFR. By making Doppler CFR more automated, precise, and operator-independent, AI could expand the clinical applicability of coronary microvascular assessment.