Quantitative flow ratio demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy when fractional flow reserve was used as the reference standard compared to instantaneous wave-free ratio (90.8% vs 81.3%, P<0.001).
Observational (n=264)
Blinded core laboratory
Does quantitative flow ratio (QFR) have high diagnostic agreement with fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), and coronary flow reserve (CFR) in patients with ischemic heart disease?
QFR demonstrates high diagnostic agreement with FFR and iFR, suggesting it is a promising wire-free and adenosine-free alternative for physiology-based revascularization assessment.
Absolute Event Rate: 90.8% vs 81.3%
p-value: p=<0.001
Background Quantitative flow ratio ( QFR ) has a high diagnostic accuracy in assessing functional stenoses relevance, as judged by fractional flow reserve ( FFR ). However, its diagnostic performance has not been thoroughly evaluated using instantaneous wave-free ratio ( iFR ) or coronary flow reserve as the reference standard. This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance of QFR using other reference standards beyond FFR . Methods and Results We analyzed 182 patients (253 vessels) with stable ischemic heart disease and 82 patients (105 nonculprit vessels) with acute myocardial infarction in whom coronary stenoses were assessed with FFR , iFR, and coronary flow reserve. Contrast QFR analysis of interrogated vessels was performed in blinded fashion by a core laboratory, and its diagnostic performance was evaluated with respect to the other invasive physiological indices. Mean percentage diameter stenosis, FFR , iFR , coronary flow reserve, and QFR were 53.1±19.0%, 0.80±0.13, 0.88±0.12, 3.14±1.30, and 0.81±0.14, respectively. QFR showed higher correlation ( r=0.863 with FFR versus 0.740 with iFR , P0.05, overall comparison P=0.061). Conclusions QFR has a high correlation and agreement with respect to both FFR and iFR , although it is better when FFR is used as the comparator. As a pressure-derived index not depending on wire or adenosine, QFR might be a promising tool for improving the adoption rate of physiology-based revascularization in clinical practice.
Hwang et al. (Fri,) conducted a observational in Stable ischemic heart disease and acute myocardial infarction (n=264). Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) vs. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy of QFR using FFR versus iFR as reference standard (p=<0.001). Quantitative flow ratio demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy when fractional flow reserve was used as the reference standard compared to instantaneous wave-free ratio (90.8% vs 81.3%, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: