Dataset Information

Quantification of the Effect of Pressure Wire Drift on the Diagnostic Performance of Fractional Flow Reserve, Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio, and Whole-Cycle Pd/Pa.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Small drifts in intracoronary pressure measurements (±2 mm Hg) can affect stenosis categorization using pressure indices. This has not previously been assessed for fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and whole-cycle distal pressure/proximal pressure (Pd/Pa) indices.

Methods and results

Four hundred forty-seven stenoses were assessed with FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa. Cut point values for significance were predefined as ≤0.8, <0.90, and <0.93, respectively. Pressure wire drift was simulated by offsetting the distal coronary pressure trace by ±2 mm Hg. FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa indices were recalculated and stenosis misclassification quantified. Median (±median absolute deviation) values for FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa were 0.81 (±0.11), 0.90 (±0.07), and 0.93 (±0.06), respectively. For the cut point of FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa, 34.6% (155), 50.1% (224), and 62.2% (278) of values, respectively, lay within ±0.05 U. With ±2 mm Hg pressure wire drift, 21% (94), 25% (110), and 33% (148) of the study population were misclassified with FFR, iFR, and whole-cycle Pd/Pa, respectively. Both FFR and iFR had significantly lower misclassification than whole-cycle Pd/Pa (P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the diagnostic performance of FFR and iFR (P=0.125).

Conclusions

In a substantial proportion of cases, small amounts of pressure wire drift are enough to cause stenoses to change classification. Whole-cycle Pd/Pa is more vulnerable to such reclassification than FFR and iFR.

SUBMITTER: Cook CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4836560 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Quantitative flow ratio ( QFR ) has a high diagnostic accuracy in assessing functional stenoses relevance, as judged by fractional flow reserve ( FFR ). However, its diagnostic performance has not been thoroughly evaluated using instantaneous wave-free ratio ( iFR ) or coronary flow reserve as the reference standard. This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance of QFR using other reference standards beyond FFR . Methods and Results We analyzed 182 patients (253 vessels) with stable ischemic heart disease and 82 patients (105 nonculprit vessels) with acute myocardial infarction in whom coronary stenoses were assessed with FFR , iFR, and coronary flow reserve. Contrast QFR analysis of interrogated vessels was performed in blinded fashion by a core laboratory, and its diagnostic performance was evaluated with respect to the other invasive physiological indices. Mean percentage diameter stenosis, FFR , iFR , coronary flow reserve, and QFR were 53.1±19.0%, 0.80±0.13, 0.88±0.12, 3.14±1.30, and 0.81±0.14, respectively. QFR showed higher correlation ( r=0.863 with FFR versus 0.740 with iFR , P<0.001), diagnostic accuracy (90.8% versus 81.3%, P<0.001), and discriminant function (area under the curve=0.953 versus 0.880, P<0.001) when FFR was used as a reference standard than when iFR was used as the reference standard. However, when coronary flow reserve was used as an independent reference standard, FFR , iFR , and QFR showed modest discriminant function (area under the curve=0.682, 0.765, and 0.677, respectively) and there were no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy among FFR , iFR , and QFR (65.4%, 70.6%, and 64.9%; all P values in pairwise comparisons >0.05, overall comparison P=0.061). Conclusions QFR has a high correlation and agreement with respect to both FFR and iFR , although it is better when FFR is used as the comparator. As a pressure-derived index not depending on wire or adenosine, QFR might be a promising tool for improving the adoption rate of physiology-based revascularization in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been a gradual upward creep of revascularization thresholds for both fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), before the clinical outcome trials for both indices. The increase in revascularization that has potentially resulted is at odds with increasing evidence questioning the benefits of revascularizing stable coronary disease. Using an independent invasive reference standard, this study primarily aimed to define optimal thresholds for FFR and iFR and also aimed to compare the performance of iFR, FFR, and resting distal coronary pressure (Pd)/central aortic pressure (Pa).Methods and resultsPd and Pa were measured in 75 patients undergoing coronary angiography±percutaneous coronary intervention with resting Pd/Pa, iFR, and FFR calculated. Doppler average peak flow velocity was simultaneously measured and hyperemic stenosis resistance calculated as hyperemic stenosis resistance=Pa-Pd/average peak flow velocity (using hyperemic stenosis resistance >0.80 mm Hg/cm per second as invasive reference standard). An FFR threshold of 0.75 had an optimum diagnostic accuracy (84%), whereas for iFR this was 0.86 (76%). At these thresholds, the discordance in classification between indices was 11%. The accuracy of contemporary thresholds (FFR, 0.80; iFR, 0.89) was significantly lower (78.7% and 65.3%, respectively) with a 25% rate of discordance. The optimal threshold for Pd/Pa was 0.88 (77.3% accuracy). When comparing indices at optimal thresholds, FFR showed the best diagnostic performance (area under the curve, 0.91 FFR versus 0.79 iFR and 0.77 Pd/Pa, P=0.002).ConclusionsContemporary thresholds provide suboptimal diagnostic accuracy compared with an FFR threshold of 0.75 and iFR threshold of 0.86 (cutoffs in derivation studies). Whether more rigorous thresholds would result in selecting populations gaining greater symptom and prognostic benefit needs assessing in future trials of physiology-guided revascularization.