Coronary disease & ACSRandomised controlled trial
Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve: 2-year follow-up of the FAVOR III Europe trial
- multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial
- 2-year follow-up
- landmark analysis from 1 to 2 years
- unadjusted Cox regression for superiority
Authors' conclusion
The excess risks associated with QFR-guided revascularisation compared with FFR were confined to the first year. From 1 to 2 years, the rates of MACE developed similarly in the QFR and the FFR groups.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with intermediate coronary artery stenoses from European medical centresrandomised, from 34 European medical centres
- Participants
- 2,000 patients
- Comparison
- Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) group vs fractional flow reserve (FFR) group
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Major adverse cardiac events (MACE):
- All-cause death
- Myocardial infarction
- Unplanned revascularisation
Hazard ratio
1.34
95% CI 0.98–1.81
P = 0.064
By group
QFR group vs FFR group
HR 1.34 (95% CI 0.98–1.81); P = 0.064
Further findings
| Outcome | QFR group | FFR group | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MACE between 1 and 2 years (landmark analysis) · landmark analysis | 3.2% | 3.2% | 0.97 (0.58–1.62) | P = 0.92 | |
| 0.512Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve: 2-year follow-up of the FAVOR III Europe trial. EuroIntervention. Published 4 May 2026. doi:10.4244/eij-d-25-01255
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it