Key result
Coronary angiography-derived diastolic pressure ratio (caDPR) demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 87.7% and an area under the curve of 0.940 when compared to wire-derived FFR.
Why the study?
To retrospectively assess the diagnostic performance of a novel computational fluid dynamic-based coronary angiography-derived diastolic pressure ratio (caDPR) without using an invasive pressure wire, compared to wire-derived FFR.
Does coronary angiography-derived diastolic pressure ratio (caDPR) accurately assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions compared to wire-derived FFR in patients with stable or unstable angina?
Observational (n=328)
Blinded
Yes
Does coronary angiography-derived diastolic pressure ratio (caDPR) accurately assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions compared to wire-derived FFR in patients with stable or unstable angina?
Effect estimate: Accuracy 87.7% (95% CI 83.7-91.1)
Coronary angiography-derived diastolic pressure ratio (caDPR) provides high diagnostic accuracy for assessing the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions without requiring a pressure wire or hyperemic stimulus.
AIMS: Based on the aortic pressure waveform, a specially designed computational fluid dynamic (CFD) method was proposed to determine coronary angiography-derived diastolic pressure ratio (caDPR) without using invasive pressure wire. The aim of the study is to retrospectively assess diagnostic performance of the caDPR in the catheterization laboratory, based on a previous multicenter trial for online assessment of coronary angiography-derived FFR (caFFR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with diagnosis of stable or unstable angina pectoris were enrolled in six centers. Wire-derived FFR was measured in coronary arteries with 30-90% diameter stenosis. Offline caDPR was assessed in blinded fashion against wire-derived FFR at an independent core laboratory. A total of 330 patients who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were enrolled from June 26 to December 18, 2018. Offline computed caDPR and wire-derived FFR were compared in 328 interrogated vessels. The caDPR with a cutoff value of 0.89 shows diagnostic accuracy of 87.7%, sensitivity of 89.5%, specificity of 86.8%, and AUC of 0.940 against the wire-derived FFR with a cutoff value of 0.80. CONCLUSIONS: Using wired-based FFR as the standard reference, there is good diagnostic performance of the novel-CFD-design caDPR. Hence, caDPR could enhance the hemodynamic assessment of coronary lesions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gong et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Stable or unstable angina pectoris with intermediate coronary lesions (n=328). Coronary angiography-derived diastolic pressure ratio (caDPR) vs. Wire-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy of caDPR (cutoff 0.89) against wire-derived FFR (cutoff 0.80) (Accuracy 87.7%, 95% CI 83.7-91.1). Coronary angiography-derived diastolic pressure ratio (caDPR) demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 87.7% and an area under the curve of 0.940 when compared to wire-derived FFR.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: