Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Correlation and Relative Prognostic Power of Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Fractional Flow Reserve and Quantitative Flow Ratio.
Observational study 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. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio versus invasive fractional flow reserve in the left anterior descending coronary artery: impact of hydrostatic pressure correction and clinical implications.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of side effects and severe complications caused by intracoronary pressure measurement.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- Real-World Comparison of FFR and QFR: New Perspectives on the Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenoses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an established method to evaluate the functional result of angiographically successful PCI; however, it is rarely measured. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is shown to be correlated with FFR before PCI. In this observational study we sought to evaluate the correlation and relative prognostic value of post-PCI QFR compared with post-PCI FFR. METHODS AND
resultsWe analyzed the outcome of all patients who underwent FFR-guided PCI with post-PCI FFR measurement. Post-PCI QFR was calculated offline, blinded to the value of post-PCI FFR and the clinical outcome. The primary end point was target-vessel failure (TVF) defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel-related nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel repeat revascularization. The secondary end point was the composite of cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction. Median follow-up was 50 months. QFR calculation was unsuccessful in 15.6% of the vessels; thus, 422 vessels of 365 patients were included in the analysis. Post-PCI QFR systematically overestimated post-PCI FFR with a mean bias of +0.052, and their correlation was poor (Pearson's
conclusionsPost-PCI QFR has a poor correlation with and overestimates post-PCI FFR. Whereas post-PCI FFR is an independent predictor of clinical outcome, post-PCI QFR is not.
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.