Łukasz Kołtowski1, Martyna Zaleska2, Jakub Maksym2, Mariusz Tomaniak2, Mateusz Soliński3, Dominika Puchta2, Niels R Holm4, Grzegorz Opolski2, Janusz Kochman2. 1. 1st Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Warsaw, ul. Banacha 1a, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland. lukasz.koltowski@wum.edu.pl. 2. 1st Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Warsaw, ul. Banacha 1a, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland. 3. Faculty of Physics, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland. 4. Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark.
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio (QFR). A novel method was used for non-invasive functional assessment of intermediate coronary lesions. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold standard for functional assessment of intermediate lesions. However, interrogating a stenosis with pressure wire prolongs the procedure, increases costs and carries a risk of procedure-related adverse events. QFR is a wire-free method for computation of FFR based on 3D reconstruction of angiographic images and modified TIMI frame count. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively computed QFR (Medis Suite XA/QAngio XA 3D/QFR, Medis/Netherlands) in suitable cases with corresponding FFR (PressureWire™, Abbott, US/). Four QFR measures were tested against FFR: (1) fixed-flow QFR (fQFR), (2) vessel QFR (vQFR), (3) lesion QFR (lQFR) and (4) index QFR (iQFR). 857 lesions (740 patients) were reviewed, 306 (268 patients) met technical inclusion criteria for QFR (two optimal angiographic projections > 25° apart; no ostial location, no overlapping/shortening, frame-rate ≥ 15 fps). Mean angiographic percentage diameter stenosis was 51.3 ± 10.18%. Wire-based FFR ≤ 0.80 was found in 130 lesions (42.5%). Strong Pearson correlation was identified for iQFR (r = 0.85), fQFR (r = 0.73), vQFR (r = 0.78) and lQFR (r = 0.70). The optimal QFR decision values corresponding to FFR = 0.80 were iQFR = 0.79 (AUC = 0.94), fQFR = 0.73 (AUC = 0.87), vQFR = 0.77 (AUC = 0.90), and lQFR = 0.83 (AUC = 0.82). Sensitivity and specificity > 95% were identified for iQFR ≤ 0.74 (n = 89, 29%) and > 0.83 (n = 116, 38%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The QFR value at the pressure transducer position (iQFR) was the best corresponding QFR model. iQFR is characterised by high diagnostic accuracy and used in a hybrid model with FFR which may reduce the number of procedures requiring pressure-wire by two-thirds.
AIMS: To evaluate diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio (QFR). A novel method was used for non-invasive functional assessment of intermediate coronary lesions. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold standard for functional assessment of intermediate lesions. However, interrogating a stenosis with pressure wire prolongs the procedure, increases costs and carries a risk of procedure-related adverse events. QFR is a wire-free method for computation of FFR based on 3D reconstruction of angiographic images and modified TIMI frame count. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively computed QFR (Medis Suite XA/QAngio XA 3D/QFR, Medis/Netherlands) in suitable cases with corresponding FFR (PressureWire™, Abbott, US/). Four QFR measures were tested against FFR: (1) fixed-flow QFR (fQFR), (2) vessel QFR (vQFR), (3) lesion QFR (lQFR) and (4) index QFR (iQFR). 857 lesions (740 patients) were reviewed, 306 (268 patients) met technical inclusion criteria for QFR (two optimal angiographic projections > 25° apart; no ostial location, no overlapping/shortening, frame-rate ≥ 15 fps). Mean angiographic percentage diameter stenosis was 51.3 ± 10.18%. Wire-based FFR ≤ 0.80 was found in 130 lesions (42.5%). Strong Pearson correlation was identified for iQFR (r = 0.85), fQFR (r = 0.73), vQFR (r = 0.78) and lQFR (r = 0.70). The optimal QFR decision values corresponding to FFR = 0.80 were iQFR = 0.79 (AUC = 0.94), fQFR = 0.73 (AUC = 0.87), vQFR = 0.77 (AUC = 0.90), and lQFR = 0.83 (AUC = 0.82). Sensitivity and specificity > 95% were identified for iQFR ≤ 0.74 (n = 89, 29%) and > 0.83 (n = 116, 38%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The QFR value at the pressure transducer position (iQFR) was the best corresponding QFR model. iQFR is characterised by high diagnostic accuracy and used in a hybrid model with FFR which may reduce the number of procedures requiring pressure-wire by two-thirds.
Authors: Nico H J Pijls; Pepijn van Schaardenburgh; Ganesh Manoharan; Eric Boersma; Jan-Willem Bech; Marcel van't Veer; Frits Bär; Jan Hoorntje; Jacques Koolen; William Wijns; Bernard de Bruyne Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-05-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Matthias Götberg; Evald H Christiansen; Ingibjörg J Gudmundsdottir; Lennart Sandhall; Mikael Danielewicz; Lars Jakobsen; Sven-Erik Olsson; Patrik Öhagen; Hans Olsson; Elmir Omerovic; Fredrik Calais; Pontus Lindroos; Michael Maeng; Tim Tödt; Dimitrios Venetsanos; Stefan K James; Amra Kåregren; Margareta Nilsson; Jörg Carlsson; Dario Hauer; Jens Jensen; Ann-Charlotte Karlsson; Georgios Panayi; David Erlinge; Ole Fröbert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Philip B Dattilo; Anand Prasad; Emily Honeycutt; Tracy Y Wang; John C Messenger Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Shengxian Tu; Emanuele Barbato; Zsolt Köszegi; Junqing Yang; Zhonghua Sun; Niels R Holm; Balázs Tar; Yingguang Li; Dan Rusinaru; William Wijns; Johan H C Reiber Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Pim A L Tonino; Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Uwe Siebert; Fumiaki Ikeno; Marcel van' t Veer; Volker Klauss; Ganesh Manoharan; Thomas Engstrøm; Keith G Oldroyd; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A MacCarthy; William F Fearon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Justin E Davies; Sayan Sen; Hakim-Moulay Dehbi; Rasha Al-Lamee; Ricardo Petraco; Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Ravinay Bhindi; Sam J Lehman; Darren Walters; James Sapontis; Luc Janssens; Christiaan J Vrints; Ahmed Khashaba; Mika Laine; Eric Van Belle; Florian Krackhardt; Waldemar Bojara; Olaf Going; Tobias Härle; Ciro Indolfi; Giampaolo Niccoli; Flavo Ribichini; Nobuhiro Tanaka; Hiroyoshi Yokoi; Hiroaki Takashima; Yuetsu Kikuta; Andrejs Erglis; Hugo Vinhas; Pedro Canas Silva; Sérgio B Baptista; Ali Alghamdi; Farrel Hellig; Bon-Kwon Koo; Chang-Wook Nam; Eun-Seok Shin; Joon-Hyung Doh; Salvatore Brugaletta; Eduardo Alegria-Barrero; Martijin Meuwissen; Jan J Piek; Niels van Royen; Murat Sezer; Carlo Di Mario; Robert T Gerber; Iqbal S Malik; Andrew S P Sharp; Suneel Talwar; Kare Tang; Habib Samady; John Altman; Arnold H Seto; Jasvindar Singh; Allen Jeremias; Hitoshi Matsuo; Rajesh K Kharbanda; Manesh R Patel; Patrick Serruys; Javier Escaned Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nadeem Ahmed; Jamie Layland; David Carrick; Mark C Petrie; Margaret McEntegart; Hany Eteiba; Stuart Hood; Mitchell Lindsay; Stuart Watkins; Andrew Davie; Ahmed Mahrous; Jaclyn Carberry; Vannesa Teng; Alex McConnachie; Nick Curzen; Keith G Oldroyd; Colin Berry Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Tudor C Poerner; Corinna Duderstadt; Björn Goebel; Daniel Kretzschmar; Hans R Figulla; Sylvia Otto Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Ojas Hrakesh Mehta; Michael Hay; Ren Yik Lim; Abdul Rahman Ihdayhid; Michael Michail; Jun Michael Zhang; James D Cameron; Dennis T L Wong Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2020-06
Authors: Martyna Zaleska; Lukasz Koltowski; Jakub Maksym; Aleksandra K Chabior; Aleksandra Pohadajło; Mateusz Soliński; Mariusz Tomaniak; Grzegorz Opolski; Janusz Kochman Journal: Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 1.426