Literature DB >> 30137305

Diagnostic performance of angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.

Carlos Collet1,2, Yoshinobu Onuma3,4, Jeroen Sonck2, Taku Asano1, Bert Vandeloo2, Ran Kornowski5, Shengxian Tu6, Jelmer Westra7, Niels R Holm7, Bo Xu8, Robbert J de Winter1, Jan G Tijssen1, Yosuke Miyazaki4, Yuki Katagiri1, Erhan Tenekecioglu4, Rodrigo Modolo1, Ply Chichareon1, Bernard Cosyns2, Daniel Schoors2, Bram Roosens2, Stijn Lochy2, Jean-Francois Argacha2, Alexandre van Rosendael9, Jeroen Bax9, Johan H C Reiber10,11, Javier Escaned12, Bernard De Bruyne13, William Wijns14, Patrick W Serruys15.   

Abstract

Aims: Pressure-wire assessment of coronary stenosis is considered the invasive reference standard for detection of ischaemia-generating lesions. Recently, methods to estimate the fractional flow reserve (FFR) from conventional angiography without the use of a pressure wire have been developed, and were shown to have an excellent diagnostic accuracy. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining the diagnostic performance of angiography-derived FFR for the diagnosis of haemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. Methods and results: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing the diagnostic performance of angiography-derived FFR systems were performed. The primary outcome of interest was pooled sensitivity and specificity. Thirteen studies comprising 1842 vessels were included in the final analysis. A Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis yielded a pooled sensitivity of 89% (95% credible interval 83-94%), specificity of 90% (95% credible interval 88-92%), positive likelihood ratio (+LR) of 9.3 (95% credible interval 7.3-11.7) and negative likelihood ratio (-LR) of 0.13 (95% credible interval 0.07-0.2). The summary area under the receiver-operating curve was 0.84 (95% credible interval 0.66-0.94). Meta-regression analysis did not find differences between the methods for pressure-drop calculation (computational fluid dynamics vs. mathematical formula), type of analysis (on-line vs. off-line) or software packages.
Conclusion: The accuracy of angiography-derived FFR was good to detect haemodynamically significant lesions with pressure-wire measured FFR as a reference. Computational approaches and software packages did not influence the diagnostic accuracy of angiography-derived FFR. A diagnostic strategy trial with angiography-derived FFR evaluating clinical endpoints is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30137305     DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy445

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Heart J        ISSN: 0195-668X            Impact factor:   29.983


  26 in total

1.  Combining anatomy and physiology: New angiography-based and computed tomography coronary angiography-derived fractional flow reserve indices.

Authors:  Mariusz Tomaniak; Patrick W Serruys
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 2.737

2.  The year in cardiology 2018: coronary interventions.

Authors:  Dariusz Dudek; Artur Dziewierz; Gregg Stone; William Wijns
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 29.983

3.  Hyperemic contrast velocity assessment improves accuracy of the image-based fractional flow reserve calculation.

Authors:  Balázs Tar; Csaba Jenei; Áron Üveges; Gábor Tamás Szabó; András Ágoston; Csaba András Dézsi; András Komócsi; Dániel Czuriga; Attila Juhász; Zsolt Kőszegi
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 2.737

4.  Applicability of quantitative flow ratio for rapid evaluation of intermediate coronary stenosis: comparison with instantaneous wave-free ratio in clinical practice.

Authors:  Masahiro Watarai; Masato Otsuka; Kyoichiro Yazaki; Yusuke Inagaki; Mitsuru Kahata; Asako Kumagai; Koji Inoue; Hiroshi Koganei; Kenji Enta; Yasuhiro Ishii
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2019-06-26       Impact factor: 2.357

5.  Clinical implication of QFR in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after drug-eluting stent implantation.

Authors:  Jiani Tang; Jiapeng Chu; Hanjing Hou; Yan Lai; Shengxian Tu; Fei Chen; Yian Yao; Zi Ye; Yanhua Gao; Yu Mao; Shaowei Zhuang; Xuebo Liu
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 2.357

6.  Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable Coronary Heart Disease -Is Less More?

Authors:  Hans R Figulla; Alexander Lauten; Lars S Maier; Udo Sechtem; Sigmund Silber; Holger Thiele
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 5.594

7.  Provisional drug-coated balloon treatment guided by physiology on de novo coronary lesion.

Authors:  Eun-Seok Shin; Liew Houng Bang; Eun Jung Jun; Ae-Young Her; Ju-Hyun Chung; Scot Garg; Joo Myung Lee; Joon-Hyung Doh; Chang-Wook Nam; Bon-Kwon Koo; Qiang Tang
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 2.737

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

Authors:  Chongying Jin; Anantharaman Ramasamy; Hannah Safi; Yakup Kilic; Vincenzo Tufaro; Retesh Bajaj; Guosheng Fu; Anthony Mathur; Christos V Bourantas; Andreas Baumbach
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2021-01-16       Impact factor: 2.357

9.  Operator-dependent variability of angiography-derived fractional flow reserve and the implications for treatment.

Authors:  Katherine Lal; Rebecca Gosling; Mina Ghobrial; Gareth J Williams; Vignesh Rammohan; D Rod Hose; Patricia V Lawford; Andrew Narracott; John Fenner; Julian P Gunn; Paul D Morris
Journal:  Eur Heart J Digit Health       Date:  2021-02-05

10.  Agreement Between Invasive Wire-Based and Angiography-Based Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment on Intermediate Coronary Stenoses.

Authors:  Chun-Chin Chang; Yin-Hao Lee; Ming-Ju Chuang; Chien-Hung Hsueh; Ya-Wen Lu; Yi-Lin Tsai; Ruey-Hsing Chou; Cheng-Hsueh Wu; Tse-Min Lu; Po-Hsun Huang; Shing-Jong Lin; Robert-Jan van Geuns
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-06-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.