Coronary disease & ACSRandomised controlled trial
Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for coronary revascularisation guidance (FAVOR III Europe): a multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial
- Randomised controlled trial
- multicentre
- open-label
- non-inferiority
- 34 centres in 11 European countries
Authors' conclusion
The results of the FAVOR III Europe trial do not support the use of QFR if FFR is available to guide revascularisation decisions in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with chronic or stabilised acute coronary syndrome and ≥1 intermediate non-culprit stenosis (40–90% diameter stenosis)
- Participants
- 2,000 adults
- Comparison
- Quantitative flow ratio (QFR)-guided vs fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularisation strategy
- QFRn = 1,008
- FFRn = 992reference
- Primary endpoint
- Composite of:
- Death
- MI
- Unplanned revascularisation
- Follow-up
- 12 months
Primary result
Death, MI or unplanned revascularisation
Hazard ratio
1.63
95% CI 1.11–2.41
Events by treatment group
QFR vs FFR
HR 1.63 (95% CI 1.11–2.41)
Non-inferiority margin 3.4 as printed, not drawn
As reported in the abstract
- Event proportion difference
- 2.5% (90% two-sided CI 0.9-4.2)
Safety
Adverse procedural events
Procedure-related MI QFR ten (1.0%) · FFR seven (0.7%)
Procedure-related death QFR 1
Original publication
Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for coronary revascularisation guidance (FAVOR III Europe): a multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. Published 30 October 2024. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(24)02175-5
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it