scholarly journals Is quantitative flow ratio enough to accurately assess intermediate coronary stenosis? A comparison study with fractional flow reserve

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 793-795
Author(s):  
Paweł Kleczyński ◽  
Artur Dziewierz ◽  
Lukasz Rzeszutko ◽  
Dariusz Dudek ◽  
Jacek Legutko
Keyword(s):  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Coronary Stenosis ◽  
Comparison Study ◽  
Flow Ratio ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
Quantitative Flow Ratio ◽  
Quantitative Flow

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Ruitao Zhang ◽  
Jianwei Zhang ◽  
Lijun Guo
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Coronary Stenosis ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Flow Ratio ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
Quantitative Flow Ratio ◽  
Quantitative Flow

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.

Abstract 14743: Usefulness of Estimated Coronary Flow Velocity Using Quantitative Flow Ratio for Intermediate Coronary Stenosis

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eiji Ichimoto ◽  
Nao Konagai ◽  
Sawako Horie ◽  
Atsushi Hasegawa ◽  
Hirofumi Miyahara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flow Velocity ◽  
Coronary Stenosis ◽  
Coronary Flow ◽  
Flow Ratio ◽  
Operating Characteristics ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Coronary Flow Velocity ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
Quantitative Flow Ratio ◽  
Quantitative Flow

Introduction: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a diagnostic modality for functional assessment for intermediate coronary stenosis without the use of pressure wire. QFR is calculated from 3-dimensional quantitative CAG (3D-QCA) using an advanced algorithm that enables fast computation of the pressure drop caused by coronary stenosis. Hypothesis: We assessed the usefulness of QFR and the association with an estimated coronary flow velocity (eCFV) for intermediate coronary stenosis. Methods: A total of 100 lesions in 80 consecutive patients were assessed Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) for intermediate coronary stenosis between January 2011 and April 2019. Of these, 97 lesions in 77 patients who underwent QFR were included in this study. Patients were classified into two groups (FFR ≤ 0.80 or FFR > 0.80). QFR and eCFV using contrast were measured by Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) frame counts. Results: There was no significant differences in target vessels (p = 0.90) and diffuse lesions (p = 0.06) between the two groups (FFR ≤ 0.80 or FFR > 0.80). Mean FFR and QFR values were 0.78 ± 0.12 and 0.77 ± 0.11, respectively. QFR had a good correlation with FFR values (r = 0.86, p < 0.0001). The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity on QFR ≤ 0.80 were 91.8%, 92.7% and 90.5%, respectively. The eCFV of FFR ≤ 0.80 was greater than that of FFR > 0.80 (0.19 ± 0.08 m/s vs. 0.14 ± 0.06 m/s, p<0.001). Figure showed that the eCFV correlated with FFR values (r = -0.29, p < 0.01). Moreover, the eCFV had a high area under the curve (AUC = 0.71, p < 0.01) on Receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) analysis with FFR ≤ 0.80. Conclusions: QFR was useful for the assessment of functional stenosis severity. As eCFV was faster, FFR was lower for intermediate coronary stenosis. The eCFV had a good correlation with FFR and may become one of the evaluations for ischemia.

scholarly journals P4635Referral of patients for fractional flow reserve using quantitative flow ratio

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J M Smit ◽  
G Koning ◽  
A R Van Rosendael ◽  
M El Mahdiui ◽  
B J Mertens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Flow Ratio ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
Quantitative Flow Ratio ◽  
Quantitative Flow
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document