Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: design and rationale of the randomised FAVOR III Europe Japan trial
Study context
- Population
- Patients with stable angina and intermediate coronary stenosis, or an indication for functional assessment of ≥1 non-culprit lesion after acute MI2,000 planned
- Planned comparison
- Quantitative flow ratio (QFR)-based vs standard fractional flow reserve (FFR)-based diagnostic strategy
- Primary endpoint
- MACE:
- All-cause mortality
- Any MI
- Any unplanned coronary revascularisation
- Follow-up
- 12 months
Methodological detailsFAVOR III Europe Japan, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority, clinical outcome, up to 40 international centres
- FAVOR III Europe Japan
- Investigator-initiated
- Non-inferiority
- Clinical outcome
- Up to 40 international centres
No results yet. This paper sets out the design of a trial; its results are to come.
Original publication
Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: design and rationale of the randomised FAVOR III Europe Japan trial. EuroIntervention. Published 3 April 2023. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it