Why the study?
The study was conducted to investigate the association of post-PCI quantitative flow ratio with in-stent restenosis in patients with unstable angina.
Does poor post-PCI quantitative flow ratio (QFR < 0.91) increase the risk of in-stent restenosis in patients with unstable angina undergoing PCI?
Does poor post-PCI quantitative flow ratio (QFR < 0.91) increase the risk of in-stent restenosis in patients with unstable angina undergoing PCI?
A post-PCI quantitative flow ratio (QFR) < 0.91 is a significant independent risk factor for in-stent restenosis in patients with unstable angina.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) quantitative flow ratio (QFR) with in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients with unstable angina. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated with PCI and follow-up for ISR were divided into a poor QFR group (QFR < 0.91) and a good QFR group with (QFR ≥ 0.91). All clinical data were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 143 patients enrolled, 57 (39.9%) patients were in the poor QFR group and 86 (60.1%) in the good QFR group. After stenting, the stenosis was decreased to 0 from ≥80% before PCI. At 10-month follow-up, the incidence of ISR in the good QFR group was 6.9%, significantly lower than 33.9% in the poor QFR group (P < 0.05). QFR < 0.91 was a significant (P = 0.002) risk factor for ISR, 4.25 times that of patients with QFR ≥ 0.91. After adjusting for age and sex, the risk of developing ISR in patients with poor QFR was 4.51 times that in patients with good QFR [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.76-11.54, P = 0.002], and QFR < 0.91 (adjusted risk ratio: 6.57, 95% CI: 2.45-17.60, P < 0.001) and diabetes (adjusted risk ratio: 7.23, 95% CI: 2.81-18.60, P < 0.001) were two independent risk factors for ISR. CONCLUSION: A positive linear relationship exists between QFR and ISR after adjusting for age and sex, and poor QFR < 0.91 after PCI is a significant independent risk factor for ISR among unstable angina patients undergoing PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: