Predictive value of the QFR in detecting vulnerable plaques in non-flow limiting lesions: a combined analysis of the PROSPECT and IBIS-4 study

The Differences of Quantitative Flow Ratio in Coronary Artery Stenosis with or without Atrial Fibrillation

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a new method for the assessment of the extent of coronary artery stenosis. But it may be obscured by the cardiac remodeling and abnormal blood flow of the coronary artery when encountering atrial fibrillation (AF). The present study aimed to examine the impact of these changed structures and blood flow of coronary arteries on QFR results in AF patients. Methods and Results. We evaluated QFR in 223 patients (112 patients with AF; 111 non-AF patients served as controls) who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) due to severe stenoses in coronary arteries. QFR of the target coronary was determined according to the flow rate of the contrast agent. Results showed that AF patients had significantly higher QFR values than control (0.792 ± 0.118 vs. 0.685 ± 0.167, p < 0.001). We further analyzed local QFR around the stenoses (0.858 ± 0.304 vs. 0.756 ± 0.146, p=0.002), residual QFR (0.958 ± 0.055 vs. 0.929 ± 0.093, p=0.005), and index QFR (0.807 ± 0.108 vs. 0.713 ± 0.152, p < 0.001) in these two groups of patients with and without AF. Further analysis revealed that QFR in AF patients was negatively correlated with coronary flow velocity (R = -0.22, p=0.02) and area of stenosis (R = -0.70, p < 0.001) but positively correlated with the minimum lumen area (MLA) (R = 0.47, p < 0.001). Conclusion. AF patients with coronary artery stenosis have higher QFR values, which are associated with decreased blood flow velocity, smaller stenosis, and larger MLA in AF patients upon cardiac remodeling.

Microvascular and Prognostic Effect in Lesions With Different Stent Expansion During Primary PCI for STEMI: Insights From Coronary Physiology and Intravascular Ultrasound

Background

While coronary stent implantation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) can mechanically revascularize culprit epicardial vessels, it might also cause distal embolization. The relationship between geometrical and functional results of stent expansion during the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is unclear.

Objective

We sought to determine the optimal stent expansion strategy in pPCI using novel angiography-based approaches including angiography-derived quantitative flow ratio (QFR)/microcirculatory resistance (MR) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS).

Methods

Post-hoc analysis was performed in patients with acute STEMI and high thrombus burden from our prior multicenter, prospective cohort study (ChiCTR1800019923). Patients aged 18 years or older with STEMI were eligible. IVUS imaging, QFR, and MR were performed during pPCI, while stent expansion was quantified on IVUS images. The patients were divided into three subgroups depending on the degree of stent expansion as follows: overexpansion (>100%), optimal expansion (80%−100%), and underexpansion (<80%). The patients were followed up for 12 months after PCI. The primary endpoint included sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unexpected hospitalization or unplanned revascularization, and all-cause death.

Results

A total of 87 patients were enrolled. The average stent expansion degree was 82% (in all patients), 117% (in overexpansion group), 88% (in optimal expansion), and 75% (in under-expansion). QFR, MR, and flow speed increased in all groups after stenting. The overall stent expansion did not affect the final QFR (p = 0.08) or MR (p = 0.09), but it reduced the final flow speed (−0.14 cm/s per 1%, p = 0.02). Under- and overexpansion did not affect final QFR (p = 0.17), MR (p = 0.16), and flow speed (p = 0.10). Multivariable Cox analysis showed that stent expansion was not the risk factor for MACE (hazard ratio, HR = 0.97, p = 0.13); however, stent expansion reduced the risk of MACE (HR = 0.95, p = 0.03) after excluding overexpansion patients. Overexpansion was an independent risk factor for no-reflow (HR = 1.27, p = 0.02) and MACE (HR = 1.45, p = 0.007). Subgroup analysis shows that mild underexpansion of 70%−80% was not a risk factor for MACE (HR = 1.11, p = 0.08) and no-reflow (HR = 1.4, p = 0.08); however, stent expansion <70% increased the risk of MACE (HR = 1.36, p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Stent expansion does not affect final QFR and MR, but it reduces flow speed in STEMI. Appropriate stent underexpansion of 70–80% does not seem to be associated with short-term prognosis, so it may be tolerable as noninferior compared with optimal expansion. Meanwhile, overexpansion and underexpansion of <70% should be avoided due to the independent risk of MACEs and no-reflow events.

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.

Future culprit detection based on angiography-derived FFR

OBJECTIVES

We sought to characterize the hemodynamic impact of mild coronary artery disease (CAD) using quantitative flow ratio (QFR, an angiography-derived fractional flow reserve [FFR]) in a population of patients with only non-significant CAD at baseline that subsequently experienced a myocardial infarction (MI).

BACKGROUND

The discriminatory value of FFR in patients with mild CAD remains imperfect.

METHODS

We retrospectively included patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography for an MI, in whom another angiogram had been performed within the previous 5 years. Three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography, QFR, and lesion length analysis were conducted on lesions responsible for the MI (future culprit lesions, [FCL]) as well as on control lesions (non-culprit lesions, [NCL]).

RESULTS

Eighty-three FCL and 117 NCL were analyzed in 83 patients: FCL were more severe (median % diameter of stenosis [DS] 39.1% [29.8; 45.7] vs. 29.8% [25.0; 37.2], p < .001), had lower QFR values (0.94 [0.86; 0.98] vs. 0.98 [0.96; 1.00], p < .001) and tended to be longer (15.2 mm [10.0; 27.3] vs. 12.7 mm [9.3; 22.4], p = .070) than NCL. In lesions with an interval < 2 years between baseline angiography and MI, the difference in QFR was more pronounced compared to the lesions with a longer interval (FCL: 0.92 [0.85; 0.97] vs. NCL: 0.98 [0.94; 1.00], p < .001 and FCL: 0.96 [0.88; 1.00] vs. NCL: 0.98 [0.96;1.00], p = .006 respectively) CONCLUSION: Mild coronary stenoses that are subsequently responsible for an MI (FCL) exhibit a higher DS and lower QFR years before the event. Furthermore, FCL with a lower QFR at baseline appear to lead earlier to MI.

Quantitative Flow Ratio Is Related to Intraluminal Coronary Stenosis Parameters as Assessed with Optical Coherence Tomography

Background: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel method for assessing hemodynamic relevance of a coronary lesion based on angiographic projections without the need of a pressure wire. Various studies demonstrated that QFR consistently related to fractional flow reserve (FFR); however, it is still unclear to what extent QFR reflects intraluminal stenosis parameters. Given that optical coherence tomography (OCT) is currently the gold standard to assess intraluminal stenosis parameters, we investigated the relationship between OCT-derived lesion geometry and QFR. Methods: We determined QFR in 97 lesions from 87 patients who underwent coronary angiography and OCT due to stable angina. QFR was measured with proprietary software and compared with OCT-based assessment of intraluminal stenosis parameters as well as lesion morphology. Results: Mean QFR was 0.79 ± 0.10. QFR demonstrated a consistent association with FFR (r = 0.834, p < 0.001). Interestingly, QFR was associated with OCT-derived parameters such as minimal lumen area (MLA, r = 0.390, p = 0.015), percent area stenosis (r = 0.412, p < 0.001), minimal lumen diameter (MLD, r = 0.395, p < 0.001), and percent diameter stenosis (r = 0.400, p < 0.001). Both minimal luminal area (ROC = 0.734, optimal cut-off 1.75 mm²) and minimal luminal diameter (ROC = 0.714, optimal cut-off 1.59 mm) presented a good diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing hemodynamic relevance (QFR ≤ 0.80). There was no significant association between QFR and anatomic features of plaque vulnerability. Conclusion: OCT-derived intraluminal stenosis parameters are related to QFR values and predict hemodynamic lesion relevance. The data supports the validity of QFR as 3D-vessel reconstruction method to assess coronary physiology without the need of a pressure wire.