Salvatore De Rosa1, Alberto Polimeni1, Ricardo Petraco1, Justin E Davies1, Ciro Indolfi2. 1. From the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (S.D.R., A.P., C.I.) and URT-CNR of IFC (C.I.), Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy; and National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, United Kingdom (R.P., J.E.D.). 2. From the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (S.D.R., A.P., C.I.) and URT-CNR of IFC (C.I.), Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy; and National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, United Kingdom (R.P., J.E.D.). indolfi@unicz.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aim of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis of all available studies comparing the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) with fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Published trials comparing the iFR with FFR were searched for in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus electronic databases. A total of 23 studies were available for the analysis, including 6381 stenoses. First, a meta-analysis of all studies was performed exploring the correlation between FFR and iFR. Interestingly, we found good correlation (0.798 [0.78-0.82]) between the 2 indices (P<0.001). In addition, to evaluate the diagnostic performance of iFR to identify FFR-positive coronary stenoses, we performed an additional meta-analysis, summarizing the results of receiver operating characteristics analyses from individual studies reporting the area under the curve. Summing the results of these studies, we found that iFR has a good diagnostic performance for the identification of FFR-positive stenoses (area under the curve=0.88 [0.86-0.90]; P<0.001). Furthermore, our search results included 5 studies that compared iFR and FFR to a third independent reference standard. Interestingly, no significant differences between iFR and FFR were reported in those studies. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis shows that iFR significantly correlates with standard FFR and shows a good diagnostic performance in identifying FFR-positive coronary stenoses. Finally, iFR and FFR have similar diagnostic efficiency for detection of ischemia-inducing stenoses when tested against a third comparator.
BACKGROUND: Aim of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis of all available studies comparing the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) with fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Published trials comparing the iFR with FFR were searched for in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus electronic databases. A total of 23 studies were available for the analysis, including 6381 stenoses. First, a meta-analysis of all studies was performed exploring the correlation between FFR and iFR. Interestingly, we found good correlation (0.798 [0.78-0.82]) between the 2 indices (P<0.001). In addition, to evaluate the diagnostic performance of iFR to identify FFR-positive coronary stenoses, we performed an additional meta-analysis, summarizing the results of receiver operating characteristics analyses from individual studies reporting the area under the curve. Summing the results of these studies, we found that iFR has a good diagnostic performance for the identification of FFR-positive stenoses (area under the curve=0.88 [0.86-0.90]; P<0.001). Furthermore, our search results included 5 studies that compared iFR and FFR to a third independent reference standard. Interestingly, no significant differences between iFR and FFR were reported in those studies. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis shows that iFR significantly correlates with standard FFR and shows a good diagnostic performance in identifying FFR-positive coronary stenoses. Finally, iFR and FFR have similar diagnostic efficiency for detection of ischemia-inducing stenoses when tested against a third comparator.
Authors: Peshala T Gamage; Pengfei Dong; Juhwan Lee; Yazan Gharaibeh; Vladislav N Zimin; Luis A P Dallan; Hiram G Bezerra; David L Wilson; Linxia Gu Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Tomas Kovarnik; Matsuo Hitoshi; Ales Kral; Stepan Jerabek; David Zemanek; Yoshiaki Kawase; Hiroyuki Omori; Toru Tanigaki; Jan Pudil; Alexandra Vodzinska; Marian Branny; Roman Stipal; Petr Kala; Jan Mrozek; Martin Porzer; Tomas Grezl; Kamil Novobilsky; Oscar Mendiz; Karel Kopriva; Martin Mates; Martin Chval; Zhi Chen; Pavel Martasek; Ales Linhart Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Giuseppe Panuccio; Giuseppe Neri; Lucrezia Maria Macrì; Nadia Salerno; Salvatore De Rosa; Daniele Torella Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2022-03-25