https://www.selleckchem.com/products/ml198.html Recent studies are further confirming this hypothesis, suggesting that the clinical benefit of the fractional flow reserve-guided strategy is simply due to a significant reduction in the rate of repeated revascularizations, with no significant differences in the incidence of hard endpoints. There is a need to develop new randomized studies, requiring a feasible number of patients, to test the superiority of an approach based on vulnerable plaque sealing and treatment.Can imaging provide sufficient risk stratification to warrant revascularization of a stable plaque with negative fractional flow reserve (FFR)? Prophylactic stenting could at best be applied selectively since the composite group of FFR-negative lesions has a death or myocardial infarction rate of approximately 1%/year or less but modern stents have a rate of 2% to 3.5%/year. Because vulnerable features exist in a minority of lesions, at least 9,000 patients must be screened in order to enroll a cohort with sufficient risk. While several ongoing randomized trials are testing the concept of plaque sealing in FFR-negative lesions, preventive stenting depends on such a small effect that sample sizes to validate or refute its benefit become prohibitive. Since FFR provides a quantitative, straightforward, and reproducible metric of plaque vulnerability and burden without the need for or expense of additional catheter devices, intracoronary imaging cannot meaningfully guide prophylactic stenting when faced with a negative FFR. The aim of this study was to compare ticagrelor monotherapy with dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents. The role of abbreviated DAPT followed by an oral P2Y inhibitor after PCI remains uncertain. Two randomized trials, including 14,628 patients undergoing PCI, comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints were identified, and individu