Key result
Online QFR yields ~92% diagnostic accuracy for identifying hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis.
Why the study?
The accuracy of online angiography-based quantitative flow ratio (QFR) for diagnosing hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis has not been adequately examined.
Does online QFR accurately diagnose hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis compared to FFR in patients with intermediate coronary lesions?
Cross-Sectional (n=308)
Blinded
Yes
Does online QFR accurately diagnose hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis compared to FFR in patients with intermediate coronary lesions?
Online QFR assessment during coronary angiography demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy for identifying hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis compared to wire-based FFR.
May support wire-free QFR for physiologic lesion assessment; leaves open outcome impact pending randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel angiography-based method for deriving fractional flow reserve (FFR) without pressure wire or induction of hyperemia. The accuracy of QFR when assessed online in the catheterization laboratory has not been adequately examined to date. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of QFR for the diagnosis of hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis defined by FFR ≤0.80. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter trial enrolled patients who had at least 1 lesion with a diameter stenosis of 30% to 90% and a reference diameter ≥2 mm according to visual estimation. QFR, quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), and wire-based FFR were assessed online in blinded fashion during coronary angiography and re-analyzed offline at an independent core laboratory. The primary endpoint was that QFR would improve the diagnostic accuracy of coronary angiography such that the lower boundary of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of this estimate exceeded 75%. RESULTS: Between June and July 2017, a total of 308 patients were consecutively enrolled at 5 centers. Online QFR and FFR results were both obtained in 328 of 332 interrogated vessels. Patient- and vessel-level diagnostic accuracy of QFR was 92.4% (95% CI: 88.9% to 95.1%) and 92.7% (95% CI: 89.3% to 95.3%), respectively, both of which were significantly higher than the pre-specified target value (p < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity in identifying hemodynamically significant stenosis were significantly higher for QFR than for QCA (sensitivity: 94.6% vs. 62.5%; difference: 32.0% [p < 0.001]; specificity: 91.7% vs. 58.1%; difference: 36.1% [p < 0.001]). Positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio for QFR were 85.5%, 97.1%, 11.4, and 0.06. Offline analysis also revealed that vessel-level QFR had a high diagnostic accuracy of 93.3% (95% CI: 90.0% to 95.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The study met its prespecified primary performance goal for the level of diagnostic accuracy of QFR in identifying hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis. (The FAVOR [Functional Diagnostic Accuracy of Quantitative Flow Ratio in Online Assessment of Coronary Stenosis] II China study]; NCT03191708).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis (n=308). Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) vs. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and wire-based FFR was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy of QFR exceeding a lower 95% CI boundary of 75% (95% CI 88.9-95.1, p=< 0.001). Online quantitative flow ratio (QFR) demonstrated high patient-level diagnostic accuracy (92.4%; 95% CI 88.9-95.1%; P<0.001) for identifying hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: