Key result
Quantitative flow ratio demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 76.2% for predicting PET-defined myocardial ischemia, which was significantly lower than that of FFR (83.2%) and iFR (84.3%).
Why the study?
This study evaluated the response of quantitative flow ratio to varying coronary stenosis severity and its ability to predict PET-defined myocardial ischemia.
Does quantitative flow ratio (QFR) accurately predict PET-defined myocardial ischemia compared to invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)?
Observational (n=109)
Single-blind
No
Does quantitative flow ratio (QFR) accurately predict PET-defined myocardial ischemia compared to invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)?
While QFR responds similarly to stenosis severity as FFR and iFR, its diagnostic performance for predicting PET-derived myocardial ischemia is inferior to both invasive indices.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
QFR shows inferior accuracy versus FFR/iFR for PET-defined ischemia; leaves open its clinical utility pending further validation.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based technique for functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis. This study investigated the response of QFR to different degree of stenosis severity and its ability to predict the positron emission tomography (PET)-defined myocardial ischemia. METHODS: From 109 patients with 185 vessels who underwent both 13N-ammonia PET and invasive physiological measurement, we compared QFR, fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for the responses to the different degree of anatomical (percent diameter stenosis [%DS]) and hemodynamic (relative flow reserve [RFR], coronary flow reserve, hyperemic stenosis resistance, and stress myocardial flow) stenosis severity and diagnostic performance against PET-derived parameters. RESULTS: QFR, FFR, and iFR showed similar responses to both anatomic and hemodynamic stenosis severity. Regarding RFR, the diagnostic accuracy of QFR was lower than FFR (76.2% vs. 83.2%, p=0.021) and iFR (76.2% vs. 84.3%, p=0.031). For coronary flow capacity (CFC), QFR showed a lower accuracy than iFR (74.1% vs. 82%, p=0.031) and lower discriminant function than FFR (area under curve: 0.74 vs. 0.79, p=0.044). Discordance between QFR and FFR or iFR was shown in 14.6% of cases and was driven by the difference in %DS and heterogeneous distribution of PET-derived RFR and stress myocardial blood flow. CONCLUSIONS: QFR demonstrated a similar response to different anatomic and hemodynamic stenosis severity as FFR or iFR. However, its diagnostic performance was inferior to FFR and iFR when PET-derived RFR and CFC were used as a reference.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dai et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=109). Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) vs. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy against PET-derived relative flow reserve (RFR) (95% CI 76.0-76.4, p=0.021). Quantitative flow ratio demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 76.2% for predicting PET-defined myocardial ischemia, which was significantly lower than that of FFR (83.2%) and iFR (84.3%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: