Evidence Hub

Sex differences in computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve-guided management of stable coronary artery disease: a subgroup analysis of the TARGET trial

Yi-Hong Ding, Zi-Nuan Liu, D. Shan, Xi Wang, Zi-Qiang Guo, R. Xin, Lei Xu, Mei Zhang et al.

EuroIntervention, 2026

1,216 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Females with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) often present with less obstructive disease on invasive coronary angiography (ICA) yet experience worse outcomes than males. Coronary computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) guidance improves the physiological assessment of coronary lesions beyond coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), but its sex-specific clinical impact remains uncertain.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate sex-based differences in treatment and clinical outcomes between CT-FFR-guided and standard care strategies in patients with stable CAD.

METHODS

In this post hoc subanalysis of the randomised TARGET trial, 1,216 patients with 30-90% coronary stenosis on CCTA were randomised to onsite CT-FFR-guided care or standard care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who underwent ICA without obstructive CAD or had no intervention despite obstructive CAD on ICA within 90 days of CCTA. The secondary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 2 years.

RESULTS

Females were older than males (62.3±8.1 years vs 58.2±10.7 years; p<0.001) but had comparable anatomical CAD severity. CT-FFR-guided care significantly reduced ICA without obstructive CAD and increased early revascularisation in males but not in females. Over 2 years, CT-FFR-guided management was associated with a significantly lower MACE rate in females compared with standard care (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 1,216 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free