Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stenosis by Quantitative Flow Ratio During Invasive Coronary Angiography
Authors:
- Jelmer WestraJWJelmer Westra
- Shengxian TuShengxian Tu
- Simon WintherSWSimon Winther
- Louise NissenLNLouise Nissen
- Mai-Britt VestergaardMVMai-Britt Vestergaard
- Birgitte Krogsgaard AndersenBABirgitte Krogsgaard Andersen
- Emil Nielsen HolckEHEmil Nielsen Holck
- Camilla Fox MauleCMCamilla Fox Maule
- Jane Kirk JohansenJJJane Kirk Johansen
- Lene Nyhus AndreasenLALene Nyhus Andreasen
- Jo Krogsgaard SimonsenJSJo Krogsgaard Simonsen
- Yimin ZhangYZYimin Zhang
Open Access
- 1 March 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging
- Vol. 11 (3) , e007107
Abstract
Background—: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel diagnostic modality for functional testing of coronary artery stenosis without the use of pressure wires and induction of hyperemia. QFR is based on computation of standard invasive coronary angiographic imaging. The purpose of WIFI II (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II) was to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of QFR in unselected consecutive patients. Methods and Results—: WIFI II was a predefined substudy to the Dan-NICAD study (Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease), referring 362 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease on coronary computed tomographic angiography for diagnostic invasive coronary angiography. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured in all segments with 30% to 90% diameter stenosis. Blinded observers calculated QFR (Medis Medical Imaging bv, The Netherlands) for comparison with FFR. FFR was measured in 292 lesions from 191 patients. Ten (5%) and 9 patients (5%) were excluded because of FFR and angiographic core laboratory criteria, respectively. QFR was successfully computed in 240 out of 255 lesions (94%) with a mean diameter stenosis of 50±12%. Mean difference between FFR and QFR was 0.01±0.08. QFR correctly classified 83% of the lesions using FFR with cutoff at 0.80 as reference standard. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.81–0.91) with a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 77%, 86%, 75%, and 87%, respectively. A QFR–FFR hybrid approach based on the present results enables wire-free and adenosine-free procedures in 68% of cases. Conclusions—: Functional lesion evaluation by QFR assessment showed good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with FFR. Studies comparing clinical outcome after QFR- and FFR-based diagnostic strategies are required. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02264717.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trialThe Lancet, 2015
- Revascularization Decisions in Patients With Stable Angina and Intermediate LesionsCirculation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2014
- Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI for Stable Coronary Artery DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 2014
- Fast virtual functional assessment of intermediate coronary lesions using routine angiographic data and blood flow simulation in humans: comparison with pressure wire – fractional flow reserveEuroIntervention, 2014
- Fractional Flow Reserve Calculation From 3-Dimensional Quantitative Coronary Angiography and TIMI Frame CountJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2014
- Evolving concepts of angiogram: fractional flow reserve discordances in 4000 coronary stenosesEuropean Heart Journal, 2014
- Contemporary Patterns of Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound Use Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United StatesJACC, 2012
- Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary InterventionNew England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Our Preoccupation With Coronary LuminologyCirculation, 1995
- Does Visual Interpretation of the Coronary Arteriogram Predict the Physiologic Importance of a Coronary Stenosis?New England Journal of Medicine, 1984