Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39886193›Full record

ArticleJACC. Asia2025

Prognostic Value of Postpercutaneous Coronary Intervention Murray-Law-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio: Post Hoc Analysis From FLAVOUR Trial.

Daixin Ding, Jinlong Zhang, Peng Wu, Zhiqing Wang, Huiping Shi, Wei Yu, Xinyang Hu, Jeehoon Kang, Joo-Yong Hahn, Chang-Wook Nam and 22 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JACC. Asia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02673424 (Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Imaging and Physiology-guided Intervention Strategy in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02673424 naunknown statusnot on this map

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Imaging and Physiology-guided Intervention Strategy in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis: Fractional FLow Reserve And IVUS for Clinical OUtcomes in Patients With InteRmediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR)

TypeinterventionalSponsorSeoul National University HospitalRan2016 to 2025Enrolled1,700ConditionsStable AnginaArmsFFR-guided stenting, IVUS-guided stenting
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

32 authors.

Daixin DingDepartment of Cardiology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jinlong ZhangDepartment of Cardiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Peng WuBiomedical Instrument Institute, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Zhiqing WangBiomedical Instrument Institute, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Huiping ShiPulse Medical, Shanghai, China.
Wei YuBiomedical Instrument Institute, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Xinyang HuDepartment of Cardiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Jeehoon KangDepartment of Cardiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Joo-Yong HahnSamsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Chang-Wook NamKeimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Joon-Hyung DohInje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Bong-Ki LeeKangwon National University Hospital, Gangwon, Republic of Korea.
Weon KimKyung Hee University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jinyu HuangAffiliated Hangzhou First Peoples Hospital, Hangzhou, China.
Fan JiangHangzhou Normal University Affiliated Hospital, Hangzhou, China.
Hao ZhouThe 1 Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Peng ChenThe 2 Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Lijiang TangZhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou, China.
Wenbing JiangThe Third Clinical Institute Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Xiaomin ChenNingbo First Hospital, Ningbo, China.
Wenming HeThe Affiliated Hospital of Medical School of Ningbo University, Ningbo, China.
Sung Gyun AhnWonju Severance Christian Hospital, Wonju, Republic of Korea.
Myeong-Ho YoonAjou University Hospital, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Ung KimYeungnam University Medical Center, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
You-Jeong KiUijeongbu Eulji Medical Center, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
Eun-Seok ShinDepartment of Cardiology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Republic of Korea.
Seung-Jea TahkAjou University Hospital, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Jun PuDepartment of Cardiology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
William WijnsLambe Institute for Translational Research, Smart Sensors Laboratory and CÚRAM, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Jian'an WangDepartment of Cardiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Bon-Kwon KooDepartment of Cardiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Shengxian TuDepartment of Cardiology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, and School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Coronary physiology measured by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is superior to angiography for assessing the efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Yet, the clinical adoption of post-PCI FFR is limited. Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μQFR) may represent a promising alternative, as it can quickly compute FFR from a single angiographic view. Objectives: The authors aimed to investigate the potential role of post-PCI μQFR in predicting clinical outcomes. Methods: This was a post hoc blinded analysis of the FLAVOUR trial. Patients with angiographically intermediate lesions randomized 1:1 to receive FFR or intravascular ultrasound-guided PCI were included. Post-PCI μQFR was assessed in successfully stented vessels, blinded to clinical outcomes. Suboptimal physiological outcome post-PCI was defined a priori as post-PCI μQFR <0.90. The primary endpoint was 2-year target vessel failure, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included the diagnostic concordance of pre-PCI μQFR with FFR in the FFR-guidance arm. Results: Post-PCI μQFR was successfully analyzed in 806 vessels from 777 participants (feasibility 97.0% [806 of 831]). Suboptimal physiological outcome post-PCI was identified in 24.7% (199 of 806) of vessels and post-PCI μQFR <0.90 was associated with higher risk of 2-year target vessel failure (6.1% [12 of 199] vs 2.7% [16 of 607]; HR: 2.45 [95% CI: 1.14-5.26]; Conclusions: In patients with intermediate lesions who underwent PCI with contemporary imaging or physiology guidance, lower post-PCI μQFR values predict subsequent adverse events. (Fractional FLow Reserve And IVUS for Clinical OUtcomes in Patients With InteRmediate Stenosis [FLAVOUR]; NCT02673424).

Indexed as

angiography-based physiologyclinical outcomefractional flow reserveintravascular ultrasoundpercutaneous coronary interventionquantitative flow ratiosecond-generation drug-eluting stent(s)

Identifiers

PMID39886193
PMCPMC11775804

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.