Coronary revascularisation deferral based on quantitative flow ratio or fractional flow reserve: a post hoc analysis of the FAVOR III Europe trial.

BACKGROUND

Safe deferral of revascularisation is a key aspect of physiology-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). While recent evidence gathered in the FAVOR III Europe trial showed that quantitative flow ratio (QFR) guidance did not meet non-inferiority to fractional flow reserve (FFR) guidance, it remains unknown if QFR might have a specific value in revascularisation deferral.

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the safety of coronary revascularisation deferral based on QFR as compared with FFR.

METHODS

Patients randomised in the FAVOR III trial in whom PCI was deferred in at least one coronary artery, based on QFR or FFR>0.80, were included in the present substudy. The primary outcome was the 1-year rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), with results reported for two subsets of deferred patients: (1) any study lesion deferral and (2) complete study lesion deferral.

RESULTS

A total of 523 patients (55.2%) in the QFR group and 599 patients (65.3%) in the FFR group had at least one coronary revascularisation deferral. Of these, 433 patients (82.8%) and 511 (85.3%) patients, respectively, had complete study lesion deferral. In the "complete study lesion deferral" patient group, the occurrence of MACE was significantly higher in QFR-deferred patients as compared with FFR-deferred patients (24 [5.6%] vs 14 [2.8%], adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-4.03; p=0.03). In the subgroup of "any study lesion deferral", the MACE rate was 5.6% vs 3.6% (QFR vs FFR), adjusted HR 1.55, 95% CI: 0.88-2.73; p=0.13.

CONCLUSIONS

QFR-based deferral of coronary artery revascularisation resulted in a higher incidence of 1-year MACE as compared with FFR-based deferral.