Background—Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel modality for physiological lesion assessment based on 3-dimensional vessel reconstructions and contrast flow velocity estimates. We evaluated the value of online QFR during routine invasive coronary angiography for procedural feasibility, diagnostic performance, and agreement with pressure-wire–derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a gold standard in an international multicenter study. Methods and Results—FAVOR II E-J (Functional Assessment by Various Flow Reconstructions II Europe-Japan) was a prospective, observational, investigator-initiated study. Patients with stable angina pectoris were enrolled in 11 international centers. FFR and online QFR computation were performed in all eligible lesions. An independent core lab performed 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (2D-QCA) analysis of all lesions assessed with QFR and FFR. The primary comparison was sensitivity and specificity of QFR compared with2D-QCAusing FFR as a reference standard.A total of 329patients were enrolled. Paired assessment of FFR, QFR, and2DQCA was available for 317 lesions. Mean FFR, QFR, and percent diameter stenosis were 0.83±0.09, 0.82±10, and 45±10%, respectively. FFR was ≤0.80 in 104 (33%) lesions. Sensitivity and specificity by QFR was significantly higher than by 2D-QCA (sensitivity, 86.5% (78.4–92.4) versus 44.2% (34.5–54.3); P<0.001; specificity, 86.9% (81.6–91.1) versus 76.5% (70.3–82.0); P=0.002). Area under the receiver curve was significantly higher for QFR compared with 2D-QCA (area under the receiver curve, 0.92 [0.89–0.96] versus 0.64 [0.57–0.70]; P<0.001). Median time to QFR was significantly lower than median time to FFR (time to QFR, 5.0 minutes [interquartile range, –6.1] versus time to FFR, 7.0 minutes [interquartile range, 5.0–10.0]; P<0.001). Conclusions—Online computation of QFR in the catheterization laboratory is clinically feasible and is superior to angiographic assessment for evaluation of intermediary coronary artery stenosis using FFR as a reference standard. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02959814.

Diagnostic performance of in-procedure angiography-derived quantitative flow reserve compared to pressure-derived fractional flow reserve: The FAVOR II Europe-Japan study

Campo, Gianluca;Tebaldi, Matteo;
2018

Abstract

Background—Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel modality for physiological lesion assessment based on 3-dimensional vessel reconstructions and contrast flow velocity estimates. We evaluated the value of online QFR during routine invasive coronary angiography for procedural feasibility, diagnostic performance, and agreement with pressure-wire–derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a gold standard in an international multicenter study. Methods and Results—FAVOR II E-J (Functional Assessment by Various Flow Reconstructions II Europe-Japan) was a prospective, observational, investigator-initiated study. Patients with stable angina pectoris were enrolled in 11 international centers. FFR and online QFR computation were performed in all eligible lesions. An independent core lab performed 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (2D-QCA) analysis of all lesions assessed with QFR and FFR. The primary comparison was sensitivity and specificity of QFR compared with2D-QCAusing FFR as a reference standard.A total of 329patients were enrolled. Paired assessment of FFR, QFR, and2DQCA was available for 317 lesions. Mean FFR, QFR, and percent diameter stenosis were 0.83±0.09, 0.82±10, and 45±10%, respectively. FFR was ≤0.80 in 104 (33%) lesions. Sensitivity and specificity by QFR was significantly higher than by 2D-QCA (sensitivity, 86.5% (78.4–92.4) versus 44.2% (34.5–54.3); P<0.001; specificity, 86.9% (81.6–91.1) versus 76.5% (70.3–82.0); P=0.002). Area under the receiver curve was significantly higher for QFR compared with 2D-QCA (area under the receiver curve, 0.92 [0.89–0.96] versus 0.64 [0.57–0.70]; P<0.001). Median time to QFR was significantly lower than median time to FFR (time to QFR, 5.0 minutes [interquartile range, –6.1] versus time to FFR, 7.0 minutes [interquartile range, 5.0–10.0]; P<0.001). Conclusions—Online computation of QFR in the catheterization laboratory is clinically feasible and is superior to angiographic assessment for evaluation of intermediary coronary artery stenosis using FFR as a reference standard. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02959814.
Westra, Jelmer; Andersen, Birgitte Krogsgaard; Campo, Gianluca; Matsuo, Hitoshi; Koltowski, Lukasz; Eftekhari, Ashkan; Liu, Tommy; Di Serafino, Luigi; Di Girolamo, Domenico; Escaned, Javier; Nef, Holger; Naber, Christoph; Barbierato, Marco; Tu, Shengxian; Neghabat, Omeed; Madsen, Morten; Tebaldi, Matteo; Tanigaki, Toru; Kochman, Janusz; Somi, Samer; Esposito, Giovanni; Mercone, Giuseppe; Mejia-Renteria, Hernan; Ronco, Federico; Bøtker, Hans Erik; Wijns, William; Christiansen, Evald Høj; Holm, Niels Ramsing
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
JAHA.118.009603.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Full text ed
Tipologia: Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 4.38 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
4.38 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2391587
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 70
  • Scopus 172
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 165
social impact