Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Versus Fractional Flow Reserve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background:Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is considered the gold standard for diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). Stress Cardiac magnetic resonance (SCMR) has been recently gaining traction as a non-invasive alternative to FFR. Methods:Studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of SCMR versus FFR were identified and analyzed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 and Stata software. Results:A total of 28 studies, comprising 2,387 patients, were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for SCMR were 86% and 86% at the patient level, and 82% and 88% at the vessel level, respectively. When the patient-level data were stratified based on the FFR thresholds, higher sensitivity and specificity (both 90%) were noted with the higher cutoff (0.75) and lower cutoff (0.8), respectively. At the vessel level, sensitivity and specificity at the lower FFR threshold were significantly higher at 88% and 89%, compared to the corresponding values for higher cutoff at 0.75. Similarly, meta-regression analysis of SCMR at higher (3T) resolution showed a higher sensitivity of 87% at the patient level and higher specificity of 90% at the vessel level. The highest sensitivity and specificity of SCMR (92% and 94%, respectively) were noted in studies with CAD prevalence greater than 60%. Conclusions:SCMR has high diagnostic accuracy for CAD comparable to FFR at a spatial resolution of 3T and an FFR cut-off of 0.80. An increase in CAD prevalence further improved the specificity of SCMR.

SUBMITTER: Ullah W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7239594 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Versus Fractional Flow Reserve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ullah Waqas W Roomi Sohaib S Abdullah Hafez M HM Mukhtar Maryam M Ali Zain Z Ye Ping P Haas Donald C DC Figueredo Vincent M VM

Cardiology research 20200503 3

<h4>Background</h4>Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is considered the gold standard for diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). Stress Cardiac magnetic resonance (SCMR) has been recently gaining traction as a non-invasive alternative to FFR.<h4>Methods</h4>Studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of SCMR versus FFR were identified and analyzed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 and Stata software.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 28 studies, comprising 2,387 patients, were included. The pooled sensiti ...[more]

PMID: 32494324

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of different computed tomographic (CT) fractional flow reserve (FFR) algorithms for vessels with intermediate stenosis. Materials and Methods This cross-sectional HIPAA-compliant and human research committee-approved study applied a four-step CT FFR algorithm in 61 patients (mean age, 69 years ± 10; age range, 29-89 years) with a lesion of intermediate-diameter stenosis (25%-69%) at CT angiography who underwent FFR measurement within 90 days. The per-lesion diagnostic performance of CT FFR was tested for three different approaches to estimate blood flow distribution for CT FFR calculation. The first two, the Murray law and the Huo-Kassab rule, used coronary anatomy; the third used contrast material opacification gradients. CT FFR algorithms and CT angiography percentage diameter stenosis (DS) measurements were compared by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to detect FFRs of 0.8 or lower. Results Twenty-five lesions (41%) had FFRs of 0.8 or lower. The AUC of CT FFR determination by using contrast material gradients (AUC = 0.953) was significantly higher than that of the Huo-Kassab (AUC = 0.882, P = .043) and Murray law models (AUC = 0.871, P = .033). All three AUCs were higher than that for 50% or greater DS at CT angiography (AUC = 0.596, P < .001). Correlation of CT FFR with FFR was highest for gradients (Spearman ρ = 0.80), followed by the Huo-Kassab rule (ρ = 0.68) and Murray law (ρ = 0.67) models. All CT FFR algorithms had small biases, ranging from -0.015 (Murray) to -0.049 (Huo-Kassab). Limits of agreement were narrowest for gradients (-0.182, 0.147), followed by the Huo-Kassab rule (-0.246, 0.149) and the Murray law (-0.285, 0.256) models. Conclusion Clinicians can perform CT FFR by using a four-step approach on site to accurately detect hemodynamically significant intermediate-stenosis lesions. Estimating blood flow distribution by using coronary contrast opacification variations may improve CT FFR accuracy. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

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.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Versus Fractional Flow Reserve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Versus Fractional Flow Reserve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets