Quantitative flow ratio derived from diagnostic coronary angiography in assessment of patients with intermediate coronary stenosis: a wire-free fractional flow reserve study

Prognostic impact of quantitative flow ratio (QFR)-consistent complete revascularization in patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Complete revascularization is associated with improved outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) represents an emerging angiography-based tool for functional lesion assessment. The present study investigated the prognostic impact of QFR-consistent complete revascularization in patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.

METHODS

A total of 792 patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease were enrolled in the analysis. Post-hoc QFR analyses of 1,320 nonculprit vessels were performed by investigators blinded to clinical outcomes. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonculprit vessel related nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization at 2 years after index myocardial infarction. Patients were stratified into a QFR-consistent PCI group (n = 646) and a QFR-inconsistent PCI group (n = 146), based on whether the intervention was congruent with the QFR-determined functional significance of the nonculprit lesions.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint occurred in a total of 22 patients (3.4%) in the QFR-consistent PCI group and in 27 patients (18.5%) in the QFR-inconsistent group (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10-0.30, P < .001).The difference in the primary endpoint was driven by reduced rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction (2.0% vs. 15.1%; HR 0.13, 95% CI 0.06-0.25; P < .001) and ischemia-driven revascularization (1.2% vs. 5.5%; HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.57; P = .001) in the QFR-consistent PCI group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, a QFR-consistent complete revascularization was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization. These findings underline the value of angiography-based functional lesion assessment for personalized revascularization strategies.

The effects of cardiac structure, valvular regurgitation, and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction on the diagnostic accuracy of Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio

Objective

The study aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μQFR) from a single angiographic view in patients with abnormal cardiac structure, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, and valvular regurgitation.

Background

μQFR is a novel fluid dynamics method for deriving fractional flow reserve (FFR). In addition, current studies of μQFR mainly analyzed patients with normal cardiac structure and function. The accuracy of μQFR when patients had abnormal cardiac structure, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, and valvular regurgitation has not been clear.

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed 261 patients with 286 vessels that underwent both FFR and μQFR prior to intervention. The cardiac structure and function were measured using echocardiography. Pressure wire-derived FFR ≤0.80 was defined as hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis.

Results

μQFR had a moderate correlation with FFR (r = 0.73, p < 0.001), and the Bland-Altman plot presented no difference between the μQFR and FFR (0.006 ± 0.075, p = 0.192). With FFR as the standard, the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of μQFR were 94.06% (90.65-96.50), 82.56% (72.87-89.90), 99.00% (96.44-99.88), 97.26 (89.91-99.30), and 92.96% (89.29-95.44), respectively. The concordance of μQFR/FFR was not associated with abnormal cardiac structure, valvular regurgitation (aortic valve, mitral valve, and tricuspid valve), and left ventricular diastolic function. Coronary hemodynamics showed no difference between normality and abnormality of cardiac structure and left ventricular diastolic function. Coronary hemodynamics demonstrated no difference among valvular regurgitation (none, mild, moderate, or severe).

Conclusion

μQFR showed an excellent agreement with FFR. The effect of abnormal cardiac structure, valvular regurgitation, and left ventricular diastolic function did not correlate with the diagnostic accuracy of μQFR. Coronary hemodynamics showed no difference in patients with abnormal cardiac structure, valvular regurgitation, and left ventricular diastolic function.

Non-invasive Angiographic-based Fractional Flow Reserve: Technical Development, Clinical Implications, and Future Perspectives

New non- and less-invasive techniques have been developed to overcome the procedural and operator related burden of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) for the assessment of potentially significant stenosis in the coronary arteries. Virtual FFR-techniques can obviate the need for the additional flow or pressure wires as used for FFR measurements. This review provides an overview of the developments and validation of the virtual FFR-algorithms, states the challenges, discusses the upcoming clinical trials, and postulates the future role of virtual FFR in the clinical practice.

Validity and Diagnostic Performance of Computing Fractional Flow Reserve From 2-Dimensional Coronary Angiography Images

BACKGROUND

Measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold standard for determining the physiologic significance of coronary artery stenosis, but newer software programs can calculate the FFR from 2-dimensional angiography images.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using the records of patients with intermediate coronary stenoses who had undergone adenosine FFR (aFFR). To calculate the computed FFR, a software program used simulated coronary blood flow using computational geometry constructed using at least 2 patient-specific angiographic images. Two cardiologists reviewed the angiograms and determined the computational FFR independently. Intraobserver variability was measured using κ analysis and the intraclass correlation coefficient. The correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between the calculated FFR and the aFFR.

RESULTS

A total of 146 patients were included, with 95 men and 51 women, with a mean (SD) age of 61.1 (9.5) y. The mean (SD) aFFR was 0.847 (0.072), and 41 patients (27.0%) had an aFFR of 0.80 or less. There was a strong intraobserver correlation between the computational FFRs (r = 0.808; P < .001; κ = 0.806; P < .001). There was also a strong correlation between aFFR and computational FFR (r = 0.820; P < .001) and good agreement on the Bland-Altman plot. The computational FFR had a high sensitivity (95.1%) and specificity (90.1%) for detecting an aFFR of 0.80 or less.

CONCLUSION

A novel software program provides a feasible method of calculating FFR from coronary angiography images without resorting to pharmacologically induced hyperemia.

Angiographic Lesion Morphology Provides Incremental Value to Generalize Quantitative Flow Ratio for Predicting Myocardial Ischemia

Aim

The quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is favorable for functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis without pressure wires and induction of hyperemia. The aim of this study was to explore whether angiographic lesion morphology provides incremental value to generalize QFR for predicting myocardial ischemia in unselected patients.

Methods

This study was a substudy to the CT-FFR CHINA trial, referring 345 participants from five centers with suspected coronary artery disease on coronary CT angiography for diagnostic invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured in all vessels with 30–90% diameter stenosis. QFR was calculated in 186 lesions from 159 participants in a blinded manner. In addition, parameters to characterize lesion features were recorded or measured, including left anterior descending arteries (LADs)-involved lesions, side branch located at stenotic lesion (BL), multiple lesions (ML), minimal lumen diameter (MLD), reference lumen diameter (RLD), percent diameter stenosis (%DS), lesion length (LL), and LL/MLD4. Logistic regression was used to construct two kinds of models by combining single or two lesion parameters with the QFR. The performances of these models were compared with that of QFR on a per-vessel level.

Results

A total of 148 participants (mean age: 59.5 years; 101 men) with 175 coronary arteries were included for final analysis. In total, 81 (46%) vessels were considered hemodynamically significant. QFR correctly classified 82.29% of the vessels using FFR with a cutoff of 0.80 as reference standard. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of QFR was 0.86 with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 80.25, 84.04, 81.25, and 83.16%, respectively. The combined models (QFR + LAD + MLD, QFR + LAD + %DS, QFR + BL + MLD, and QFR + BL + %DS) outperformed QFR with higher AUCs (0.91 vs. 0.86, P = 0.02; 0.91 vs. 0.86, P = 0.02; 0.91 vs. 0.86, P = 0.02; 0.90 vs. 0.86, P = 0.03, respectively). Compared with QFR, the sensitivity of the combined models (QFR + BL and QFR + MLD) was improved (91.36 vs. 80.25%, 91.36 vs. 80.25%, respectively, both P &lt; 0.05) without compromised specificity or accuracy.

Conclusion

Combined with angiographic lesion parameters, QFR can be optimized for predicting myocardial ischemia in unselected patients.

Editor's Choice - Clinical Efficacy of Venastent - A Novel Iliac Vein Stent for Non-Thrombotic Iliac Vein Lesions: A Multi-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of Venastent - a novel iliac vein stent for non-thrombotic iliac vein lesions (NIVLs).

METHODS

From October 2018 to January 2021, 256 NIVL patients were recruited at 19 Chinese hospitals. A randomised controlled trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of the new iliac vein stent-Venastent (Tianhong China) with Zilver stent (Cook USA). All patients were allocated randomly to two groups: the experimental group patients used Venastent, while the control group received the Zilver stent. The trial was registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200057851).

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients in the experimental group and 122 patients in the control group had a full set of data collected (p = ns). The technical success rate was 100% (n = 245/245). The patency rate was 100% (n = 123/123) in the experimental group and 98.4% (n = 120/122) in control group one year after operation (p = ns). The lower extremity swelling remission rate was 79.1% (n = 87/110) in the experimental group and 78.4% (n = 91/116) in the control group (p = ns). The lower extremity pain relief rate was 68.8% (n = 50/80) in the experimental group and 77.2% (n = 71/92) in the control group (p = ns). The ulcer healing rate was 90% (n = 18/20) in the experimental group and 87% (n = 20/23) in the control group (p = ns). There was no difference in stent re-stenosis or clinical remission between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The new iliac vein stent, Venastent, had a comparable high patency rate and safety profile as the Zilver stent (Cook) in NIVLs patients. Venastent significantly reduced symptoms of chronic venous disease.

Reproducibility of quantitative flow ratio: the QREP study

BACKGROUND

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a tool for physiological lesion assessment based on invasive coronary angiography.

AIMS

We aimed to assess the reproducibility of QFR computed from the same angiograms as assessed by multiple observers from different, international sites.

METHODS

We included 50 patients previously enrolled in dedicated QFR studies. QFR was computed twice, one month apart by five blinded observers. The main analysis was the coefficient of variation (CV) as a measure of intra- and inter-observer reproducibility. Key secondary analysis was the identification of clinical and procedural characteristics predicting reproducibility.

RESULTS

The intra-observer CV ranged from 2.3% (1.5-2.8) to 10.2% (6.6-12.0) among the observers. The inter-observer CV was 9.4% (8.0-10.5). The QFR observer, low angiographic quality, and low fractional flow reserve (FFR) were independent predictors of a large absolute difference between repeated QFR measurements defined as a difference larger than the median difference (>0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The inter- and intra-observer reproducibility for QFR computed from the same angiograms ranged from high to poor among multiple observers from different sites with an average agreement of 0.01±0.08 for repeated measurements. The reproducibility was dependent on the observer, angiographic quality and the coronary artery stenosis severity as assessed by FFR.

Improving PCI Outcomes Using Postprocedural Physiology and Intravascular Imaging

Although clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are improving, the long-term risk for target vessel failure remains concerning. Although the application of intravascular imaging and physiological indexes significantly improves outcomes, their routine use in practice remains limited. Nevertheless, merely using these modalities is not enough, and to truly improve patient outcomes, optimal intravascular dimensions with minimal vascular injury should be targeted. When assessing post-PCI results using either type of physiological or imaging technology, a broad spectrum of stent- and vessel-related anomalies can be expected. As not all of these issues warrant treatment, a profound knowledge of what to expect and how to recognize and when to treat these intraluminal problems is needed. Additionally, promising new modalities such as angiography-derived coronary physiology and hybrid imaging catheters are becoming available. The authors provide an overview of the currently available tools and techniques to define suboptimal PCI and when to apply these technologies to improve outcomes.

Diagnostic Performance of Angiography-Based Fractional Flow Reserve for Functional Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stenosis

Background: A new method for calculating fraction flow reserve (FFR) without pressure-wire (angiography-derived FFR) based on invasive coronary angiography (ICA) images can be used to evaluate the functional problems of coronary stenosis. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of a novel method of calculating the FFR compared to wire-based FFR using retrospectively collected data from patients with stable angina. Methods: Three hundred patients with stable angina pectoris who underwent ICA and FFR measurement were included in this study. Two ICA images with projections >25° apart at the end-diastolic frame were selected for 3D reconstruction. Then, the contrast frame count was performed in an angiographic run to calculate the flow velocity. Based on the segmented vessel, calculated velocity, and aortic pressure, AccuFFRangio distribution was calculated through the pressure drop equation. Results: Using FFR ≤ 0.8 as a reference, we evaluated AccuFFRangio performance for 300 patients with its accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Comparison of AccuFFRangio with wire-measured FFR resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.954 (per-vessel, p < 0.0001). Accuracy for AccuFFRangio was 93.7% for Pa set from measurement and 87% for Pa = 100 mmHg in this clinical study. Overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for per-vessel were 90, 95, 86.7, 96.3, and 57.5, 97.7, 90.2, 86.3%, respectively. Overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for 2-dimensional (2D) quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) were 63.3, 42.5, 70.9, 34.7, and 77.2%, respectively. The average processing time of AccuFFRangio was 4.30 ± 1.87 min. Conclusions: AccuFFRangio computed from coronary ICA images can be an accurate and time-efficient computational tool for detecting lesion-specific ischemia of coronary artery stenosis.

Non-invasive imaging software to assess the functional significance of coronary stenoses: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

QAngio^® XA 3D/QFR^® (three-dimensional/quantitative flow ratio) imaging software (Medis Medical Imaging Systems BV, Leiden, the Netherlands) and CAAS^® vFFR^® (vessel fractional flow reserve) imaging software (Pie Medical Imaging BV, Maastricht, the Netherlands) are non-invasive technologies to assess the functional significance of coronary stenoses, which can be alternatives to invasive fractional flow reserve assessment.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all evidence on QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR, including diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness, implementation and economic analyses. We searched MEDLINE and other databases to January 2020 for studies where either technology was used and compared with fractional flow reserve in patients with intermediate stenosis. The risk of bias was assessed with quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy were performed. Clinical and implementation outcomes were synthesised narratively. A simulation study investigated the clinical impact of using QAngio XA 3D/QFR. We developed a de novo decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR relative to invasive fractional flow reserve or invasive coronary angiography alone. Scenario analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the results to variation in the sources of data used to populate the model and alternative assumptions.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies (5440 patients) of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and three studies (500 patients) of CAAS vFFR were included. QAngio XA 3D/QFR had good diagnostic accuracy to predict functionally significant fractional flow reserve (≤ 0.80 cut-off point); contrast-flow quantitative flow ratio had a sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval 78% to 90%) and a specificity of 91% (95% confidence interval 85% to 95%). A total of 95% of quantitative flow ratio measurements were within 0.14 of the fractional flow reserve. Data on the diagnostic accuracy of CAAS vFFR were limited and a full meta-analysis was not feasible. There were very few data on clinical and implementation outcomes. The simulation found that quantitative flow ratio slightly increased the revascularisation rate when compared with fractional flow reserve, from 40.2% to 42.0%. Quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve resulted in similar numbers of subsequent coronary events. The base-case cost-effectiveness results showed that the test strategy with the highest net benefit was invasive coronary angiography with confirmatory fractional flow reserve. The next best strategies were QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR (without fractional flow reserve). However, the difference in net benefit between this best strategy and the next best was small, ranging from 0.007 to 0.012 quality-adjusted life-years (or equivalently £140-240) per patient diagnosed at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

Diagnostic accuracy evidence on CAAS vFFR, and evidence on the clinical impact of QAngio XA 3D/QFR, were limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative flow ratio as measured by QAngio XA 3D/QFR has good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with fractional flow reserve and is preferable to standard invasive coronary angiography alone. It appears to have very similar cost-effectiveness to fractional flow reserve and, therefore, pending further evidence on general clinical benefits and specific subgroups, could be a reasonable alternative. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CAAS vFFR are uncertain. Randomised controlled trial evidence evaluating the effect of quantitative flow ratio on clinical and patient-centred outcomes is needed.

FUTURE WORK

Studies are required to assess the diagnostic accuracy and clinical feasibility of CAAS vFFR. Large ongoing randomised trials will hopefully inform the clinical value of QAngio XA 3D/QFR.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019154575.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 56. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Angiography-based estimation of coronary physiology: A frame is worth a thousand words

Cumulative evidence has shown that coronary revascularization should be guided by functional significance of coronary lesions. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold standard for assessment of hemodynamic significance of coronary stenosis and FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention has improved clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. However, limitations of FFR such as increased operational time and cost, requirement of pressure wire and adenosine and technical difficulties have led to significant underutilization of the method in clinical practice. In the last few years, several methods of FFR estimation based on coronary angiography images have emerged to overcome invasive FFR limitations. The common elements of the novel indices include a 3D anatomical reconstruction of coronary vessels by angiographic projections and various approaches to fluid dynamics computation. Angiography-derived FFR methods have shown high diagnostic accuracy compared to invasive FFR. Although there are promising results regarding their prognostic role, large randomized trials evaluating clinical outcomes are lacking. The aim of this review is to present currently available angiography-derived FFR indices and highlight their differences, advantages, disadvantages and potential clinical implications.

Comparison of diagnostic performance between quantitative flow ratio, non-hyperemic pressure indices and fractional flow reserve

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 dPR_25-75, 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 (r_s=0.801), iFR (r_s=0.710), dPR (r_s=0.716), dPR_25-75 (r_s=0.715) and DILEMMA score (r_s=-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), dPR_25-75 (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.

Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Fractional Flow Reserve versus Quantitative Flow Ratio for Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenoses

Background. Use of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) technique is recommended to evaluate coronary stenosis severity and guide revascularization. However, its high cost, time to administer, and the side effects of adenosine reduce its clinical utility. Two novel adenosine-free indices, contrast-FFR (cFFR) and quantitative flow ratio (QFR), can simplify the functional evaluation of coronary stenosis. This study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of cFFR and QFR using FFR as a reference index. Methods. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in which cFFR or QFR was compared to FFR. A bivariate model was applied to pool diagnostic parameters. Cochran’s Q test and the I2 index were used to assess heterogeneity and identify the potential source of heterogeneity by metaregression and sensitivity analysis. Results. Overall, 2220 and 3000 coronary lesions from 20 studies were evaluated by cFFR and QFR, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.91) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.94) for cFFR and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.91) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87, 0.93) for QFR, respectively. No statistical significance of sensitivity and specificity for cFFR and QFR were observed in the bivariate analysis (P=0.8406 and 0.4397, resp.). The area under summary receiver-operating curve of cFFR and QFR was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.97) for cFFR and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.97). Conclusion. Both cFFR and QFR have good diagnostic performance in detecting functional severity of coronary arteries and showed similar diagnostic parameters.

QFR Predicts the Incidence of Long-Term Adverse Events in Patients with Suspected CAD: Feasibility and Reproducibility of the Method

AIMS

We evaluate feasibility and reproducibility of post hoc quantitative flow ratio (QFR) measurements and their prognostic predictive power during long-term follow-up.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2012, 167 patients without angiographic evidence of significant stenoses were enrolled in a prospective registry. Of these patients, 96% presented 7 years follow-up data. QFR was measured post hoc by three certified investigators. QFR analysis was feasible in 71% of left anterior descending (LAD), 72% of left circumflex (LCX), and 61% of right (RCA) coronaries for a total of 350 measurements repeated in triplicate. Coefficients of variation were 2.1% for RCA and LCX, and 2.8% for the LAD (quartile coefficients of dispersion respectively 1.5, 1.4, and 1.3). QFR ≤0.80 was recorded in 25 patients (27 vessels, in 74% of the cases LAD). A total of 86 major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were observed in 76 patients. QFR ≤0.80 in at least one of the three vessels was the strongest predictor of events (HR 3.14, 95%CI 1.78-5.54, p = 0.0001). This association was maintained in several sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

QFR reproducibility is acceptable, even when analysis is performed post hoc. A pathological QFR is not rare in patients without angiographic evidence of significant stenosis and is a predictor of incident events during long-term follow-up.

CONDENSED ABSTRACT

In a post hoc analysis of 167 patients without evidence of angiographic significant stenosis, the presence of QFR value ≤0.80 in at least one of the three coronary vessels showed to be the strongest predictor of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events during long-term follow-up. QFR reproducibility have been shown to be acceptable among experienced operators.

Assessment of intermediate coronary lesions by fractional flow reserve and quantitative flow ratio in patients with small-vessel disease

BACKGROUND

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) has recently been introduced as a novel, less-invasive, adenosine-free measure for functional coronary lesion assessment. Whether reference vessel dimensions affect functional lesion assessment is uncertain.

METHODS

A total of 436 patients with 516 interrogated coronary vessels by means of FFR were included in the study. Patients were dichotomized according to the median reference vessel diameter (group 1: ≤2.8 mm and group 2: >2.8 mm). QFR analyses were performed offline at the institution's core laboratories.

RESULTS

Reference vessel diameter was 2.5 [2.3-2.7] mm in group 1 and 3.3 [3.0-3.6] mm in group 2. Diameter stenosis (41.4 [36.4-47.6] % vs. 41.4 [36.4-45.7] %, p = .20) did not differ among groups. Median FFR values were lower in group 1 (0.87 [0.81-0.92]) as compared with group 2 (0.89 [0.84-0.93], p = .001). Consistently, QFR values were lower in group 1 (0.88 [0.82-0.92]) than in group 2 (0.91 [0.85-0.94], p = .001). The proportions of functionally significant coronary lesions as defined by FFR ≤0.80 were 24.1% and 14.2% in groups 1 and 2 (p = .005), and as defined by cQFR ≤0.80 20.4% and 11.8% (p = 0.009), respectively. In ROC analysis for an FFR ≤.80, the AUC was 0.89 (95% CI 0.85-0.93, p < .001) in group 1 and 0.81 (95% CI 0.76-0.86, p < .001) in group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that QFR measurements are accurate irrespective of the reference vessel diameter. Future studies are needed to elucidate the higher percentage of functionally significant lesions observed in small vessels despite a similar angiographic lesion severity.

Quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve mismatch - clinical and biochemical predictors of measurement discrepancy

INTRODUCTION

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold standard for functional assessment of intermediate lesions. However, assessing a stenosis with pressure wire prolongs the procedure, increases costs and carries a risk of procedure-related adverse events. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a wire-free method for detection of significant ischemia based on 3D reconstruction of angiographic images and TIMI frame count.

AIM

To evaluate the influence of laboratory and clinical variables on QFR-FFR mismatch.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively computed QFR (Medis Suite XA/QAngio XA 3D/QFR, Medis/Netherlands) in suitable cases with corresponding FFR (PressureWire, Abbott, US). Uni-/multivariate analysis was performed to identify clinical and biochemical predictors of QFR-FFR mismatch.

RESULTS

Two hundred six lesions (196 patients, 76% male, mean age: 66.4 ±10.1 years) were included. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) were associated with significantly larger differences between QFR and FFR values (-0.062 ±0.031 vs. -0.025 ±0.068; p = 0.027 and -0.059 ±0.07 vs. -0.027 ±0.074; p = 0.039; respectively). CKD was associated with a decrease of diagnostic efficiency (AUC = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.46-0.88 vs. AUC = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.84-0.94, p = 0.05). For biochemical variables only weak Spearman correlations were identified for hemoglobin concentration (r = -0.18) and hematocrit levels (r = -0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

CKD may impair the QFR diagnostic accuracy. Larger, prospective studies are needed to further explore this potential relationship.

Alternative methods for functional assessment of intermediate coronary lesions

Wire-based fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a diagnostic tool used to evaluate the ischemic burden of coronary lesions. Large-scale studies have shown that FFR-guided revascularization is associated with better clinical outcomes. However, wide adoption of this technology is limited due to the considerable cost, additional time needed for set-up and performance of the measurement as well as the invasiveness of the procedure which requires pressure wire placement across the lesion into the distal segment of the coronary artery. To overcome these limitations new, promising, and less-/non-invasive methods were developed. These methods are based on computational fluid dynamics analysis and three-dimensional lumen reconstruction. The aim of this paper is to review scientific evidence supporting the clinical safety and efficacy of these techniques, such as instantaneous wave-free ratio, quantitative flow ratio and FFR calculated from computed tomographic angiography.