Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) and vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) estimated retrospectively by conventional radiation saving X-ray angiography.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Angiography derived FFR reveals good performance in assessing intermediate coronary stenosis. However, its performance under contemporary low X-ray frame and pulse rate settings is unknown. We aim to validate the feasibility and performance of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) and vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) under such angiograms.

Methods

This was an observational, retrospective, single center cohort study. 134 vessels in 102 patients, with angiograms acquired under 7.5fps and 7pps mode, were enrolled. QFR (fQFR and cQFR) and vFFR were validated with FFR as the gold standard. A conventional manual and a newly developed algorithmic exclusion method (M and A group) were both evaluated for identification of poor-quality angiograms.

Results

Good agreement between QFR/vFFR and FFR were observed in both M and A group, except for vFFR in the M group. The correlation coefficients between fQFR/cQFR/vFFR and FFR were 0.6242, 0.5888, 0.4089 in the M group, with r_vFFR significantly lower than r_fQFR (p = 0.0303), and 0.7055, 0.6793, 0.5664 in the A group, respectively. AUCs of detecting lesions with FFR ≤ 0.80 were 0.852 (95% CI 0.722-0.913), 0.858 (95% CI 0.778-0.917), 0.682 (95% CI 0.586-0.768), for fQFR/cQFR/vFFR in the M group, while vFFR performed poorer than fQFR (p = 0.0063) and cQFR (p = 0.0054). AUCs were 0.898 (95% CI 0.811-0.945), 0.892 (95% CI 0.803-0.949), 0.843 (95% CI 0.746-0.914) for fQFR/cQFR/vFFR in the A group. AUC_vFFR was significantly higher in the A group than that in the M group (p = 0.0399).

Conclusions

QFR/vFFR assessment is feasible under 7.5fps and 7pps angiography, where cQFR showed no advantage compared to fQFR. Our newly developed algorithmic exclusion method could be a better method of selecting angiograms with adequate quality for angiography derived FFR assessment.

SUBMITTER: Jin C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8105229 | 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: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.