Combining FFR and IMR as a clinical reference reduced the false discovery rate of exercise stress tests compared to QCA (45.8% vs 60.7%; p=0.006).
Observational (n=107)
Yes
Does the combination of FFR and IMR as a reference standard reduce the false discovery rate of exercise stress tests compared to QCA in patients with intermediate pretest probability of CAD?
In patients with positive exercise stress tests, using invasive functional assessment (FFR and IMR) as the reference standard significantly reduces the false discovery rate compared to using angiographic stenosis alone.
Absolute Event Rate: 45.8% vs 60.7%
p-value: p=0.006
BACKGROUND: Cardiac stress tests remain the cornerstone for evaluating patients suspected of having obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) can lead to abnormal non-invasive tests. AIMS: We sought to assess the diagnostic performance of exercise stress tests with indexes of epicardial and microvascular resistance as reference. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-arm, multicentre study of patients with an intermediate pretest probability of CAD and positive exercise stress tests who were referred for invasive angiography. Patients underwent an invasive diagnostic procedure (IDP) with measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and index of microvascular resistance (IMR) in at least one coronary vessel. Obstructive CAD was defined as diameter stenosis (DS) >50% by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). The objective was to determine the false discovery rate (FDR) of cardiac exercise stress tests with both FFR and IMR as references. RESULTS: One hundred and seven patients (137 vessels) were studied. The mean age was 62.1±8.7, and 27.1% were female. The mean diameter stenosis was 37.2±27.5%, FFR was 0.84±0.10, coronary flow reserve was 2.74±2.07, and IMR 20.3±11.9. Obstructive CAD was present in 39.3%, whereas CMD was detected in 20.6%. The FDR was 60.7% and 62.6% with QCA and FFR as references (p-value=0.803). The combination of FFR and IMR as clinical reference reduced the FDR by 25% compared to QCA (45.8% vs 60.7%; p-value=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with evidence of ischaemia, an invasive functional assessment accounting for the epicardial and microvascular compartments led to an improvement in the diagnostic performance of exercise tests, driven by a significant FDR reduction.
Vandeloo et al. (Wed,) conducted a observational in Suspected coronary artery disease (n=107). Combination of FFR and IMR as clinical reference vs. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was evaluated on False discovery rate (FDR) of cardiac exercise stress tests (p=0.006). Combining FFR and IMR as a clinical reference reduced the false discovery rate of exercise stress tests compared to QCA (45.8% vs 60.7%; p=0.006).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: