ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Visual-physiological concordance and target vessel outcomes: a μQFR-based real-world cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) offers a non-interventional alternative for evaluating ischemia, yet its concordance with real-world treatment and clinical outcomes remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the alignment between Murray law-based QFR (μQFR) physiological assessment and treatment strategies, evaluate the association between treatment concordance and clinical outcomes, and explore factors influencing concordance. Methods: In this retrospective cohort, 242 patients with angiographically intermediate coronary stenosis and μQFR values adjacent to the grey-zone (low: 0.70-0.74; high: 0.86-0.90) were included. Treatment concordance was defined as PCI for low μQFR and medication for high μQFR. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), comprising cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (ID-TVR). Median follow-up was 18 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate outcomes, and logistic regression identified determinants of operator decision-making. Results: Among 242 patients, 177 (73.1%) received μQFR-concordant and 65 (26.9%) discordant treatment. TVF occurred less frequently in μQFR-concordant group (2.3% vs. 7.9%, Conclusions: Approximately one-fifth of treatment for intermediate coronary stenoses was discordant with μQFR assessment. μQFR-concordant treatment was associated with lower TVF, primarily due to fewer ID-TVR. Integrating μQFR into clinical decision-making may help optimize revascularization strategies and improve outcomes in real-world practice.
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.