Trial reportJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Angiographic Quantitative Flow Ratio-Guided Treatment of Patients With Physiologically Intermediate Coronary Lesions.
Trial report in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03656848 (Comparison of Quantitative Flow Ratio Guided and Angiography Guided Percutaneous InterVention in Patients With cORonary Artery Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Comparison of Quantitative Flow Ratio Guided and Angiography Guided Percutaneous InterVention in Patients With cORonary Artery Disease (The FAVOR III China Study)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond borderline physiology: determinants of treatment choice and phenotypes of outcome in QFR grey-zone lesions.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- Stepwise Assessment of Computational Coronary Physiology and Plaque Vulnerability: Impact on Coronary Revascularization Decision Making.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- Visual-physiological concordance and target vessel outcomes: a μQFR-based real-world cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- The Quantitative Flow Ratio Uncertainty-Zone: Finding Certainty Within Uncertainty.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe FAVOR III (Comparison of Quantitative Flow Ratio Guided and Angiography Guided Percutaneous Intervention in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease) China trial reported improved clinical outcomes with percutaneous coronary intervention guided by quantitative flow ratio (QFR) compared with angiography. Whether these benefits also apply for patients presenting with "uncertainty-zone" lesions of intermediate physiological significance is uncertain. This study aims to examine the impact of QFR guidance versus angiography guidance on the management and outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in uncertainty-zone lesions. METHODS AND
resultsIn this prespecified subgroup analysis, offline QFR assessment categorized 873 patients (22.9%) into the uncertainty-zone subgroup, defined as having an offline QFR of 0.75 to 0.85 in all coronary arteries with a lesion causing ≥50% diameter stenosis. At 2 years, the rate of major adverse cardiac events, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization, occurred in 31 patients (7.0%) in the QFR-guided group and 35 patients (8.3%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.52-1.37]). In landmark analysis, the relative treatment effect of QFR guidance versus angiography guidance on major adverse cardiac events differed before 1 year (4.7% versus 3.8%; HR, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.65-2.40]) and after 1 year (2.3% versus 5.5%; HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.20-0.87]) (
conclusionsIn the modest-sized subgroup of patients with physiologically intermediate lesions randomized in the FAVOR III China trial, 2-year clinical outcomes were not significantly improved with a QFR-guided revascularization strategy compared with angiography guidance. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT03656848.
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.