Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for Heart Team decision-making in multivessel disease: the randomised, multicentre DECISION quantitative flow ratio (QFR) trial
Primary result · Agreement in recommended revascularisation mode, QFR vs FFRResult — go to the resultCohen's kappa 0.73 95% CI 0.62–0.83Authors' conclusion
QFR provided feasible physiological data in Heart Team discussions to determine the optimal revascularisation strategy for MVD. The QFR and FFR approaches agreed substantially in terms of treatment recommendations.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with multivessel disease discussed by Heart Teams for revascularisation mode (PCI or CABG)
- Participants
- 248 patients10 study sites
- Comparison
- QFR-based vs fractional flow reserve (FFR)-based Heart Team decision-making
- Primary endpoint
- Agreement between the two teams' treatment recommendations (Cohen's kappa)
Methodological detailsmulticentre, 10 study sites
- Multicentre
- 10 study sites
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Agreement in recommended revascularisation mode, QFR vs FFR
Cohen's kappa
0.73
95% CI 0.62–0.83
Further findings
| Outcome | Cohen's kappa (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Agreement in target vessels for PCI | 0.72 (0.66–0.78) |
| Agreement in target vessels for CABG | 0.72 (0.66–0.78) |
| Consistency of QFR team's recommended mode after being made aware of FFR dataQFR team before vs after FFR data | 0.95 (0.90–1.00) |
Original publication
Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for Heart Team decision-making in multivessel disease: the randomised, multicentre DECISION QFR trial. EuroIntervention. Published 10 May 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →