Background: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) may be used to assess the functional significance of coronary lesions. Only limited validation exists for this technology in the setting of severe aortic stenosis. Methods: A prospective study was performed on patients who were being considered for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. QFR analysis was performed (Medis Medical Imaging System, Leiden, The Netherlands) and compared to invasive measurements of haemodynamic assessment [fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), diastolic pressure ratio during the wave-free period (dPR) and distal arterial pressure/arterial pressure (Pd/Pa)]. Results: A total of 35 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 75.5±6.5 and mean aortic valve gradient was 44.3±11.8 mmHg. There were 57 vessels analysed. The mean FFR was 0.83±0.10 and 22 vessels (39%) had a functionally significant FFR ≤0.80. QFR demonstrated a discriminatory power to predict functionally significant FFR [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84 to 1.00], representing a sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 91%, positive predictive value of 84%, negative predictive value of 84% and an accuracy of 84%. QFR also demonstrated a discriminatory power to predict functionally significant iFR ≤0.89 (AUC =0.92; 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.99), dPR ≤0.89 (AUC =0.90; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.98) and Pd/Pa ≤0.92 (AUC =0.89; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97). Conclusions: QFR demonstrates acceptable diagnostic performance in patients with severe aortic stenosis when both FFR and non-hyperaemic pressure indices are used as reference standards. 2022 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Background: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) may be used to assess the functional significance of coronary lesions. Only limited validation exists for this technology in the setting of severe aortic stenosis. Methods: A prospective study was performed on patients who were being considered for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. QFR analysis was performed (Medis Medical Imaging System, Leiden, The Netherlands) and compared to invasive measurements of haemodynamic assessment [fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), diastolic pressure ratio during the wave-free period (dPR) and distal arterial pressure/arterial pressure (Pd/Pa)]. Results: A total of 35 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 75.5±6.5 and mean aortic valve gradient was 44.3±11.8 mmHg. There were 57 vessels analysed. The mean FFR was 0.83±0.10 and 22 vessels (39%) had a functionally significant FFR ≤0.80. QFR demonstrated a discriminatory power to predict functionally significant FFR [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84 to 1.00], representing a sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 91%, positive predictive value of 84%, negative predictive value of 84% and an accuracy of 84%. QFR also demonstrated a discriminatory power to predict functionally significant iFR ≤0.89 (AUC =0.92; 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.99), dPR ≤0.89 (AUC =0.90; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.98) and Pd/Pa ≤0.92 (AUC =0.89; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97). Conclusions: QFR demonstrates acceptable diagnostic performance in patients with severe aortic stenosis when both FFR and non-hyperaemic pressure indices are used as reference standards. 2022 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Quantitative flow ratio (QFR); aortic stenosis; computed tomography (CT); fractional flow reserve (FFR); instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)
Authors: Andrea Comella; Michael Michail; Jasmine Chan; Udit Thakur; Robert Gooley; Brian Ko; James D Cameron; Adam J Brown Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2021-02-08 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: Catherine M Otto; Rick A Nishimura; Robert O Bonow; Blase A Carabello; John P Erwin; Federico Gentile; Hani Jneid; Eric V Krieger; Michael Mack; Christopher McLeod; Patrick T O'Gara; Vera H Rigolin; Thoralf M Sundt; Annemarie Thompson; Christopher Toly Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Yousif Ahmad; Matthias Götberg; Christopher Cook; James P Howard; Iqbal Malik; Ghada Mikhail; Angela Frame; Ricardo Petraco; Christopher Rajkumar; Ozan Demir; Juan F Iglesias; Ravinay Bhindi; Sasha Koul; Nearchos Hadjiloizou; Robert Gerber; Punit Ramrakha; Neil Ruparelia; Nilesh Sutaria; Gajen Kanaganayagam; Ben Ariff; Michael Fertleman; Jon Anderson; Andrew Chukwuemeka; Darrel Francis; Jamil Mayet; Patrick Serruys; Justin Davies; Sayan Sen Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-08-25 Impact factor: 11.195