Angiographic Quantitative Flow Ratio-Guided Coronary Intervention: 5-Year Follow-Up From the FAVOR III China Randomized Trial
Primary result · MACEResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 0.80 95% CI 0.69–0.92Authors' conclusion
Compared with angiography guidance, QFR-guided strategy improved 5-year clinical outcomes, with benefits primarily achieved within the first 2 years.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with ≥1 angiographically intermediate coronary lesion (50%-90% diameter stenosis) in a vessel ≥2.5 mm diameter
- Comparison
- Quantitative flow ratio (QFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs angiography-guided PCI
Methodological detailsmulticentre, sham-controlled
- Multicentre
- Sham-controlled
Primary result
MACE · 5 years
Hazard ratio
0.80
95% CI 0.69–0.92
P = 0.002
By group
QFR-guided vs Angiography-guided
HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.69–0.92); P = 0.002
As reported in the abstract
Further findings
| Outcome | QFR-guided | Angiography-guided | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI · 5 years | 5.8% | 9.0% | 0.63 (0.49–0.80) | P < 0.0001 | |
| Ischemia-driven revascularization · 5 years | 9.6% | 12.0% | 0.78 (0.64–0.95) | P = 0.02 | |
| 0.512Hazard ratio (log scale) |
All-cause death · 5 years
- All-cause death did not differ between groups
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Angiographic Quantitative Flow Ratio-Guided Coronary Intervention: 5-Year Follow-Up From the FAVOR III China Randomized Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. Published 10 June 2026. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it