BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an estimate of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and is derived from 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography. The DILEMMA score is an angiographic technique developed to predict FFR. Unlike other diastolic indices such as instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and dPR25-75, neither QFR nor DILEMMA score require pressure wires. This study sought to compare the diagnostic performance of QFR, diastolic indices and DILEMMA score to predict FFR. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2013, patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography and FFR assessments were retrospectively studied. iFR and dPR were derived from FFR pressure tracings. QFR was computed using commercial software. RESULTS: Eighty-five lesions (25% FFR significant) were included in this study. Median FFR was 0.88 (0.81-0.92). QFR (rs=0.801), iFR (rs=0.710), dPR (rs=0.716), dPR25-75 (rs=0.715) and DILEMMA score (rs=-0.623) significantly correlated with FFR (P<0.001). QFR ≤0.8 had a specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95%, 86%, 86% and 95% respectively of predicting significant FFR (P<0.001). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed the AUC to predict significant FFR for QFR (0.947), iFR (0.880), dPR (0.883), dPR25-75 (0.880) and DILEMMA score (0.916) were not significantly different. However, QFR was a better predictor of FFR than iFR (0.947 vs. 0.770, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: QFR had excellent correlation and accuracy as measured against FFR. When compared to other diastolic indices and DILEMMA score, QFR performed at least as well as the other indices. QFR predicts FFR better than it predicts iFR. QFR is a convenient tool to assess significance of coronary stenosis and a reliable alternative to pressure-wire based indices. Prospective studies are required to investigate the performance and cost-effectiveness of QFR when independently used to guide clinical decision making. 2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an estimate of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and is derived from 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography. The DILEMMA score is an angiographic technique developed to predict FFR. Unlike other diastolic indices such as instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and dPR25-75, neither QFR nor DILEMMA score require pressure wires. This study sought to compare the diagnostic performance of QFR, diastolic indices and DILEMMA score to predict FFR. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2013, patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography and FFR assessments were retrospectively studied. iFR and dPR were derived from FFR pressure tracings. QFR was computed using commercial software. RESULTS: Eighty-five lesions (25% FFR significant) were included in this study. Median FFR was 0.88 (0.81-0.92). QFR (rs=0.801), iFR (rs=0.710), dPR (rs=0.716), dPR25-75 (rs=0.715) and DILEMMA score (rs=-0.623) significantly correlated with FFR (P<0.001). QFR ≤0.8 had a specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95%, 86%, 86% and 95% respectively of predicting significant FFR (P<0.001). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed the AUC to predict significant FFR for QFR (0.947), iFR (0.880), dPR (0.883), dPR25-75 (0.880) and DILEMMA score (0.916) were not significantly different. However, QFR was a better predictor of FFR than iFR (0.947 vs. 0.770, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: QFR had excellent correlation and accuracy as measured against FFR. When compared to other diastolic indices and DILEMMA score, QFR performed at least as well as the other indices. QFR predicts FFR better than it predicts iFR. QFR is a convenient tool to assess significance of coronary stenosis and a reliable alternative to pressure-wire based indices. Prospective studies are required to investigate the performance and cost-effectiveness of QFR when independently used to guide clinical decision making. 2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Coronary artery disease; adenosine; fractional flow reserve (FFR); instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR); physiology; pressure ratio; quantitative flow ratio (QFR)
Authors: Javier Escaned; Mauro Echavarría-Pinto; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Tim P van de Hoef; Ton de Vries; Prashant Kaul; Ganesh Raveendran; John D Altman; Howard I Kurz; Johannes Brechtken; Mark Tulli; Clemens Von Birgelen; Joel E Schneider; Ahmed A Khashaba; Allen Jeremias; Jim Baucum; Raul Moreno; Martijn Meuwissen; Gregory Mishkel; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Howard Levite; Ramon Lopez-Palop; Marc Mayhew; Patrick W Serruys; Habib Samady; Jan J Piek; Amir Lerman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Pim A L Tonino; William F Fearon; Bernard De Bruyne; Keith G Oldroyd; Massoud A Leesar; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A Maccarthy; Marcel Van't Veer; Nico H J Pijls Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Paul Erne; Andreas W Schoenenberger; Dieter Burckhardt; Michel Zuber; Wolfgang Kiowski; Peter T Buser; Paul Dubach; Therese J Resink; Matthias Pfisterer Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Cameron Dowling; Michael Michail; Jun Michael Zhang; Andrea Comella; Udit Thakur; Robert Gooley; Liam McCormick; Adam J Brown; Dennis T L Wong Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2022-06