ArticleEuropean heart journal open2024
Prognostic role of discordance between quantitative flow ratio and visual estimation in revascularization guidance.
Article in European heart journal open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Visual-physiological concordance and target vessel outcomes: a μQFR-based real-world cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Revascularization guided by functional severity has presented improved outcomes compared with visual angiographic guidance. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a reliable angiography-based method for functional assessment. We sought to investigate the prognostic value of discordance between QFR and visual estimation in coronary revascularization guidance. Methods and results: We performed offline QFR analysis on all-comers undergoing coronary angiography. Vessels with calculated QFR were divided into four groups based on the decision to perform or defer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and on the QFR result, i.e.: Group A (PCI-, QFR > 0.8); Group B (PCI+, QFR ≤ 0.8); Group C (PCI+, QFR > 0.8); Group D (PCI-, QFR ≤ 0.8). Patients with at least one vessel falling within the disagreement groups formed the discordance group, whereas the remaining patients formed the concordance group. The primary endpoint was the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischaemia-driven revascularization. Overall, 546 patients were included in the study. Discordance between QFR and visual estimation was found in 26.2% of patients. After a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, the discordance group had a significantly higher rate of the composite outcome (hazard ratio: 3.34, 95% confidence interval 1.99-5.60, Conclusion: Discordance between QFR and visual estimation in revascularization guidance was associated with a worse long-term prognosis. Our results highlight the importance of proper patient selection for intervention and the need to avoid improper stent implantations when not dictated by a comprehensive functional assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.