Dataset Information

Association of Quantitative Flow Ratio with Lesion Severity and Its Ability to Discriminate Myocardial Ischemia.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based technique for functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis. This study investigated the response of QFR to different degree of stenosis severity and its ability to predict the positron emission tomography (PET)-defined myocardial ischemia.

Methods

From 109 patients with 185 vessels who underwent both 13N-ammonia PET and invasive physiological measurement, we compared QFR, fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for the responses to the different degree of anatomical (percent diameter stenosis [%DS]) and hemodynamic (relative flow reserve [RFR], coronary flow reserve, hyperemic stenosis resistance, and stress myocardial flow) stenosis severity and diagnostic performance against PET-derived parameters.

Results

QFR, FFR, and iFR showed similar responses to both anatomic and hemodynamic stenosis severity. Regarding RFR, the diagnostic accuracy of QFR was lower than FFR (76.2% vs. 83.2%, p=0.021) and iFR (76.2% vs. 84.3%, p=0.031). For coronary flow capacity (CFC), QFR showed a lower accuracy than iFR (74.1% vs. 82%, p=0.031) and lower discriminant function than FFR (area under curve: 0.74 vs. 0.79, p=0.044). Discordance between QFR and FFR or iFR was shown in 14.6% of cases and was driven by the difference in %DS and heterogeneous distribution of PET-derived RFR and stress myocardial blood flow.

Conclusions

QFR demonstrated a similar response to different anatomic and hemodynamic stenosis severity as FFR or iFR. However, its diagnostic performance was inferior to FFR and iFR when PET-derived RFR and CFC were used as a reference.

SUBMITTER: Dai N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7853889 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of Quantitative Flow Ratio with Lesion Severity and Its Ability to Discriminate Myocardial Ischemia.

Dai Neng N Hwang Doyeon D Lee Joo Myung JM Zhang Jinlong J Tong Yaliang Y Jeon Ki Hyun KH Paeng Jin Chul JC Cheon Gi Jeong GJ Koo Bon Kwon BK Ge Junbo J

Korean circulation journal 20210201 2

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based technique for functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis. This study investigated the response of QFR to different degree of stenosis severity and its ability to predict the positron emission tomography (PET)-defined myocardial ischemia.<h4>Methods</h4>From 109 patients with 185 vessels who underwent both 13N-ammonia PET and invasive physiological measurement, we compared QFR, fractional flow reserve ( ...[more]

PMID: 33525067

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aim The quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is favorable for functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis without pressure wires and induction of hyperemia. The aim of this study was to explore whether angiographic lesion morphology provides incremental value to generalize QFR for predicting myocardial ischemia in unselected patients. Methods This study was a substudy to the CT-FFR CHINA trial, referring 345 participants from five centers with suspected coronary artery disease on coronary CT angiography for diagnostic invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured in all vessels with 30–90% diameter stenosis. QFR was calculated in 186 lesions from 159 participants in a blinded manner. In addition, parameters to characterize lesion features were recorded or measured, including left anterior descending arteries (LADs)-involved lesions, side branch located at stenotic lesion (BL), multiple lesions (ML), minimal lumen diameter (MLD), reference lumen diameter (RLD), percent diameter stenosis (%DS), lesion length (LL), and LL/MLD4. Logistic regression was used to construct two kinds of models by combining single or two lesion parameters with the QFR. The performances of these models were compared with that of QFR on a per-vessel level. Results A total of 148 participants (mean age: 59.5 years; 101 men) with 175 coronary arteries were included for final analysis. In total, 81 (46%) vessels were considered hemodynamically significant. QFR correctly classified 82.29% of the vessels using FFR with a cutoff of 0.80 as reference standard. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of QFR was 0.86 with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 80.25, 84.04, 81.25, and 83.16%, respectively. The combined models (QFR + LAD + MLD, QFR + LAD + %DS, QFR + BL + MLD, and QFR + BL + %DS) outperformed QFR with higher AUCs (0.91 vs. 0.86, P = 0.02; 0.91 vs. 0.86, P = 0.02; 0.91 vs. 0.86, P = 0.02; 0.90 vs. 0.86, P = 0.03, respectively). Compared with QFR, the sensitivity of the combined models (QFR + BL and QFR + MLD) was improved (91.36 vs. 80.25%, 91.36 vs. 80.25%, respectively, both P < 0.05) without compromised specificity or accuracy. Conclusion Combined with angiographic lesion parameters, QFR can be optimized for predicting myocardial ischemia in unselected patients.

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:Background and objectiveNumerous studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of physiology-guided coronary revascularization in chronic coronary syndrome, resulting in a high level of guideline recommendation for these patients. However, the application of coronary physiology in acute coronary syndrome (ACS), especially in the acute phase of myocardial infarction, remains challenging. Over the last decade, the number of novel physiological indices derived from the computation of angiography have been developed as alternatives to pressure wire-based fractional flow reserve. Among these angiography-based indices, the quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is undoubtedly the one with the largest amount of data cumulated so far. In this article, we aim to review the related studies that describe efforts to investigate the diagnostic role of QFR and discuss perspectives for its current and future applications in the setting of the ACS.MethodsA literature search was performed on the electronic databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar and Web of Science covering publications in English up to May 2022.Key content and findingsAn emerging body of evidence has validated the diagnostic accuracy of angiography-derived QFR for the assessment of functional severity of coronary stenosis in both acute and chronic coronary syndromes. In parallel, multiple technologies, i.e., QFR-based pullback pressure gradient index, angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance and intravascular imaging-based morphofunctional evaluation methods, have been proposed, allowing operators to easily obtained physiological data of micro and macro-circulation, together with atherosclerotic lesion characteristics in catheterization laboratories. More recently, promising results supporting the clinical value of QFR in guiding revascularization and predicting outcomes for ACS patients have been published.ConclusionsAngiography-based QFR bears the potential of a wider adoption of coronary physiology assessment in the ACS setting due to its quicker and less-invasive nature. However, the current evidence mainly derived from retrospective studies or post-hoc analyses of prospective trials. Future studies are needed to further explore the benefits of QFR-guided revascularization on outcomes in ACS.

Dataset Information

Association of Quantitative Flow Ratio with Lesion Severity and Its Ability to Discriminate Myocardial Ischemia.

Background and objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Association of Quantitative Flow Ratio with Lesion Severity and Its Ability to Discriminate Myocardial Ischemia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets