Trial reportEuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology2026
Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve: 2-year follow-up of the FAVOR III Europe trial.
Trial report in EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2026. 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.
- Expanding physiology beyond the wire: will 2026 be the defining year?EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based method for estimating fractional flow reserve (FFR). The FAVOR III Europe trial showed that QFR guidance did not meet non-inferiority to FFR guidance, as measured by a composite endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularisation at 12 months.
aimsWe sought to report the 2-year outcomes of the QFR-guided diagnostic strategy and the FFR-guided strategy as applied in the FAVOR III Europe trial.
methodsFAVOR III Europe was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. A total of 2,000 patients from 34 European medical centres were randomised to undergo QFR- or FFR-guided revascularisation of intermediate coronary artery stenoses. Endpoints assessed at the 2-year follow-up included the rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and its individual components of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularisation. The rates of MACE were compared for superiority by unadjusted Cox regression analysis. The outcomes from 1 to 2 years were explored in a landmark analysis.
resultsAt 2 years, the rates of MACE were 9.7% in the QFR group and 7.4% in the FFR group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.81; p=0.064). In the landmark analysis, the rates of MACE between 1 and 2 years were 3.2% in the QFR group and 3.2% in the FFR group (HR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.58-1.62; p=0.92).
conclusionsThe excess risks associated with QFR-guided revascularisation compared with FFR were confined to the first year. From 1 to 2 years, the rates of MACE developed similarly in the QFR and the FFR groups.
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.