Vladimir Rubimbura1, Benoit Guillon2, Stéphane Fournier1, Nicolas Amabile3, Chan Chi Pan1, Nicolas Combaret4, Eric Eeckhout1, Marion Kibler5, Johanne Silvain6, William Wijns7, Francois Schiele2, Olivier Muller1, Nicolas Meneveau2, Julien Adjedj1,8. 1. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Department of Cardiology, EA3920, University Hospital Jean Minjoz, Besançon, France. 3. Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France. 4. Service de Cardiologie, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, France. 5. Departement de cardiologie, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Strasbourg, France. 6. Université Paris 6, ACTION Study Group, Institut de Cardiologie (AP-HP), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Pitié-Salpêtrière, INSERM UMRS, Paris, France. 7. The Lambe Institute for Translational Medicine and Curam, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. 8. Department of Cardiology, Arnault Tzanck Institute, Saint Laurent du Var, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the correlations of pre-PCI QFR analysis with virtual PCI called residual QFR and post-PCI QFR compared to post-PCI FFR. BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) based on angiography without use of a pressure wire. The ability to evaluate post-PCI FFR using pre-PCI QFR analysis with a virtual PCI and the correlation between post-PCI QFR compared to post-PCI FFR remains unknown. METHODS: From the DOCTORS (Does Optical Coherence Tomography Optimize Results of Stenting) study population, we blindly analyzed residual QFR and post-PCI QFR from angiographies and compared them to post-PCI FFR. RESULTS: Ninety-three post-PCI QFR measurements and 84 pre-PCI residual QFR measurements were compared to post-PCI FFR measurements. No significant difference were observed between mean post-PCI FFR value (0.92 ± 0.05) compared to mean residual (0.93 ± 0.05) QFR and between mean post-PCI FFR value compared to mean post-PCI QFR values were (0.93 ± 0.05) (p > .05 for both). The correlation coefficient of residual QFR with post-PCI FFR was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.53-0.78) and the correlation coefficient of post-PCI-QFR with post-PCI FFR was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Residual QFR corresponding to pre-PCI QFR analysis with virtual PCI, and post-PCI QFR analysis, correlated well with post-PCI FFR. Further studies are needed to prospectively validate a QFR-guided PCI strategy.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the correlations of pre-PCI QFR analysis with virtual PCI called residual QFR and post-PCI QFR compared to post-PCI FFR. BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) based on angiography without use of a pressure wire. The ability to evaluate post-PCI FFR using pre-PCI QFR analysis with a virtual PCI and the correlation between post-PCI QFR compared to post-PCI FFR remains unknown. METHODS: From the DOCTORS (Does Optical Coherence Tomography Optimize Results of Stenting) study population, we blindly analyzed residual QFR and post-PCI QFR from angiographies and compared them to post-PCI FFR. RESULTS: Ninety-three post-PCI QFR measurements and 84 pre-PCI residual QFR measurements were compared to post-PCI FFR measurements. No significant difference were observed between mean post-PCI FFR value (0.92 ± 0.05) compared to mean residual (0.93 ± 0.05) QFR and between mean post-PCI FFR value compared to mean post-PCI QFR values were (0.93 ± 0.05) (p > .05 for both). The correlation coefficient of residual QFR with post-PCI FFR was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.53-0.78) and the correlation coefficient of post-PCI-QFR with post-PCI FFR was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Residual QFR corresponding to pre-PCI QFR analysis with virtual PCI, and post-PCI QFR analysis, correlated well with post-PCI FFR. Further studies are needed to prospectively validate a QFR-guided PCI strategy.
Authors: Pepijn A van Diemen; Ruben W de Winter; Stefan P Schumacher; Michiel J Bom; Roel S Driessen; Henk Everaars; Ruurt A Jukema; Yvemarie B Somsen; Lenka Popelkova; Peter M van de Ven; Albert C van Rossum; Tim P van de Hoef; Stefan de Haan; Koen M Marques; Jorrit S Lemkes; Yolande Appelman; Alexander Nap; Niels J Verouden; Maksymilian P Opolski; Ibrahim Danad; Paul Knaapen Journal: J Interv Cardiol Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Mariusz Tomaniak; Tara Neleman; Anniek Ziedses des Plantes; Kaneshka Masdjedi; Laurens J C van Zandvoort; Janusz Kochman; Wijnand K den Dekker; Jeroen M Wilschut; Roberto Diletti; Isabella Kardys; Felix Zijlstra; Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Joost Daemen Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Michiel J Bom; Stefan P Schumacher; Roel S Driessen; Pepijn A van Diemen; Henk Everaars; Ruben W de Winter; Peter M van de Ven; Albert C van Rossum; Ralf W Sprengers; Niels J W Verouden; Alexander Nap; Maksymilian P Opolski; Jonathon A Leipsic; Ibrahim Danad; Charles A Taylor; Paul Knaapen Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 2.692