Key result
Qualitative coronary waveform analysis fails to improve resting Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to evaluate the predictability of resting distal coronary pressure wave forms for fractional flow reserve (FFR).
Does qualitative resting coronary pressure wave form analysis improve the prediction of fractional flow reserve compared to resting Pd/Pa or iFR alone?
Cohort (n=516)
Does qualitative resting coronary pressure wave form analysis improve the prediction of fractional flow reserve compared to resting Pd/Pa or iFR alone?
Qualitative coronary wave form analysis does not substantially improve the prediction of FFR beyond resting pressure gradients like Pd/Pa and iFR.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Qualitative waveform analysis adds no value to Pd/Pa or iFR for FFR prediction; leaves open whether refined resting indices merit prospective study.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictability of resting distal coronary pressure wave forms for fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Resting coronary wave forms were qualitatively evaluated for the presence of (i) dicrotic notch, (ii) diastolic dipping, and (iii) ventricularisation. In a development cohort (n=88), a scoring system was developed that was then applied to a validation cohort (n=428) using a multivariable linear regression model to predict FFR and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) to predict FFR ≤0.8. In the development cohort, all three qualitative parameters were independent predictors of FFR. However, in a multivariable linear regression model in the validation cohort, qualitative wave form analysis did not further improve the ability of resting distal coronary to aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) (p=0.80) or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) (p=0.26) to predict FFR. Using ROC, the area under the curve of resting Pd/Pa (0.86 versus 0.86, p=0.08) and iFR (0.86 versus 0.86, p=0.26) did not improve by adding qualitative analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative coronary wave form analysis showed moderate classification agreement in predicting FFR but did not add substantially to the resting pressure gradients Pd/Pa and iFR; however, when discrepancies between quantitative and qualitative analyses are observed, artefact or pressure drift should be considered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matsumura et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease (n=516). Qualitative resting coronary pressure wave form analysis vs. Resting Pd/Pa or iFR alone was evaluated on Prediction of fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.8 (AUC 0.86 vs 0.86, p=0.08). Qualitative coronary wave form analysis did not improve the ability of resting Pd/Pa (AUC 0.86 vs 0.86, p=0.08) or iFR (AUC 0.86 vs 0.86, p=0.26) to predict fractional flow reserve ≤0.8.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: