Coronary revascularisation deferral based on quantitative flow ratio or fractional flow reserve: a post hoc analysis of the FAVOR III Europe trial
Primary result · MACE, complete study lesion deferralResult — go to the resultAdjusted hazard ratio 2.07 95% CI 1.07–4.03Authors' conclusion
QFR-based deferral of coronary artery revascularisation resulted in a higher incidence of 1-year MACE as compared with FFR-based deferral.
Study context
- Population
- Patients randomised in the FAVOR III trial in whom percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was deferred in at least one coronary artery, based on quantitative flow ratio (QFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR)>0.80patients with at least one coronary revascularisation deferral · QFR group, at least one deferral 523 · FFR group, at least one deferral 599 · QFR group, complete study lesion deferral (of those with at least one deferral) 433 · FFR group, complete study lesion deferral (of those with at least one deferral) 511
- Participants
- 523 vs 599
- Comparison
- Coronary revascularisation deferral based on QFR as compared with FFR
- QFRn = 523
- FFRn = 599reference
- Primary endpoint
- Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), complete study lesion deferral
- Follow-up
- 1 year
Methodological detailssubstudy
- Substudy
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Adjusted hazard ratio
2.07
95% CI 1.07–4.03
P = 0.03
Events by treatment group
QFR vs FFR
adjusted HR 2.07 (95% CI 1.07–4.03); P = 0.03
Further findings
| Outcome | QFR | FFR | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MACE, any study lesion deferral (subgroup) · 1 year | 5.6% | 3.6% | 1.55 (0.88–2.73) | P = 0.13 | |
| 0.20.5125Adjusted hazard ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Coronary revascularisation deferral based on quantitative flow ratio or fractional flow reserve: a post hoc analysis of the FAVOR III Europe trial. EuroIntervention. Published 3 February 2025. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it