Neng Dai1, Doyeon Hwang2, Joo Myung Lee3, Jinlong Zhang2, Yaliang Tong4, Ki Hyun Jeon5, Jin Chul Paeng6, Gi Jeong Cheon6, Bon Kwon Koo2,7, Junbo Ge1. 1. Department of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Cardiology, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Jilin, China. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Sejong General Hospital, Bucheon, Korea. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 7. Institute on Aging, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. bkkoo@snu.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based technique for functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis. This study investigated the response of QFR to different degree of stenosis severity and its ability to predict the positron emission tomography (PET)-defined myocardial ischemia. METHODS: From 109 patients with 185 vessels who underwent both 13N-ammonia PET and invasive physiological measurement, we compared QFR, fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for the responses to the different degree of anatomical (percent diameter stenosis [%DS]) and hemodynamic (relative flow reserve [RFR], coronary flow reserve, hyperemic stenosis resistance, and stress myocardial flow) stenosis severity and diagnostic performance against PET-derived parameters. RESULTS: QFR, FFR, and iFR showed similar responses to both anatomic and hemodynamic stenosis severity. Regarding RFR, the diagnostic accuracy of QFR was lower than FFR (76.2% vs. 83.2%, p=0.021) and iFR (76.2% vs. 84.3%, p=0.031). For coronary flow capacity (CFC), QFR showed a lower accuracy than iFR (74.1% vs. 82%, p=0.031) and lower discriminant function than FFR (area under curve: 0.74 vs. 0.79, p=0.044). Discordance between QFR and FFR or iFR was shown in 14.6% of cases and was driven by the difference in %DS and heterogeneous distribution of PET-derived RFR and stress myocardial blood flow. CONCLUSIONS: QFR demonstrated a similar response to different anatomic and hemodynamic stenosis severity as FFR or iFR. However, its diagnostic performance was inferior to FFR and iFR when PET-derived RFR and CFC were used as a reference.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based technique for functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis. This study investigated the response of QFR to different degree of stenosis severity and its ability to predict the positron emission tomography (PET)-defined myocardial ischemia. METHODS: From 109 patients with 185 vessels who underwent both 13N-ammonia PET and invasive physiological measurement, we compared QFR, fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for the responses to the different degree of anatomical (percent diameter stenosis [%DS]) and hemodynamic (relative flow reserve [RFR], coronary flow reserve, hyperemic stenosis resistance, and stress myocardial flow) stenosis severity and diagnostic performance against PET-derived parameters. RESULTS: QFR, FFR, and iFR showed similar responses to both anatomic and hemodynamic stenosis severity. Regarding RFR, the diagnostic accuracy of QFR was lower than FFR (76.2% vs. 83.2%, p=0.021) and iFR (76.2% vs. 84.3%, p=0.031). For coronary flow capacity (CFC), QFR showed a lower accuracy than iFR (74.1% vs. 82%, p=0.031) and lower discriminant function than FFR (area under curve: 0.74 vs. 0.79, p=0.044). Discordance between QFR and FFR or iFR was shown in 14.6% of cases and was driven by the difference in %DS and heterogeneous distribution of PET-derived RFR and stress myocardial blood flow. CONCLUSIONS: QFR demonstrated a similar response to different anatomic and hemodynamic stenosis severity as FFR or iFR. However, its diagnostic performance was inferior to FFR and iFR when PET-derived RFR and CFC were used as a reference.