Why the study?
There is uncertainty regarding the comparative accuracy of diagnostic indices for the functional significance of coronary artery disease, prompting validation of a novel non-hyperemic diastolic pressure ratio algorithm.
Does a novel non-hyperemic diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) algorithm provide equivalent diagnostic performance to iFR in assessing the functional significance of moderate coronary lesions?
Observational
Yes
Does a novel non-hyperemic diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) algorithm provide equivalent diagnostic performance to iFR in assessing the functional significance of moderate coronary lesions?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.99
p-value: p=<0.001
A novel non-hyperemic diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) algorithm provides diagnostic performance numerically equivalent to iFR for assessing the functional significance of coronary lesions.
May support the algorithm as an iFR surrogate in moderate lesions; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND: Invasive functional assessment is a mainstay in the management of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), but there is uncertainty on the comparative accuracy of diagnostic indices of functional significance. We aimed to validate the diagnostic performance of a novel non-hyperemic diastolic pressure ratio (dPR). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis including two separate registries (VERIFY 2, Latina, Italy) of patients in whom functional indices were measured for lesions with angiographically moderate severity. On top of fractional flow reserve, distal coronary pressure (Pd)/aortic pressure (Pa) ratio, instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) were computed using a novel dedicated algorithm over 4 consecutive beats. Agreement/discrepancy between indexes was appraised Bland-Altman analysis, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and unsupervised machine learning. RESULTS: =0.99, P<0.001), with a mean difference of -0.004±0.014. The diagnostic performance of dPR (best cutoff value: ≤0.89) against iFR was as follows: accuracy =96%; sensitivity =94%; specificity =97%; positive-predictive value =94%; and negative-predictive value =96%. Additionally, AUC to predict iFR≤0.89 was 0.99, which was significantly higher than that of Pd/Pa (0.97, P<0.001). In the iFR range of 0.85-0.93 ("grey zone"), the diagnostic performance was well maintained (accuracy =91%; sensitivity =87%; specificity =93%; and AUC=0.96). Results were supported also by unsupervised learning analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter registry suggests this novel dPR algorithm provides results that are numerically equivalent to iFR. Pending further studies, physicians may consider using this novel dPR algorithm to gauge the functional significance of a coronary lesion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Versaci et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (CAD). Novel non-hyperemic diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) algorithm vs. Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) was evaluated on Prediction of iFR ≤0.89 (AUC 0.99, p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: