{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/69cbcfb74bc3c0b5cea89f0c/69f8bb5b836b4ec7186dde0e?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"QFR versus FFR in the 2-year follow-up of FAVOR III Europe: Original Research","thumbnail_width":200,"thumbnail_height":200,"thumbnail_url":"https://open-images.acast.com/shows/69cbcfb74bc3c0b5cea89f0c/1777908549335-2dd6127e-20a8-4214-a0ce-11fb65f41255.jpeg?height=200","description":"<p>In this episode of Editor’s Choice, Dr Aaysha Cader speaks with Doctor Birgitte Andersen about the latest findings from the FAVOR III Europe trial, recently published in EuroIntervention.</p><p><br></p><p>They discuss the 2-year follow-up comparing quantitative flow ratio (QFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR), including the key outcome that QFR did not demonstrate non-inferiority at one year. Dr Andersen explores potential explanations, including concerns around reproducibility and early event rate differences, and highlights the need for further research to identify patient populations best suited for angiography-based physiological assessment.</p>","author_name":"EuroIntervention"}