CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Quantitative angiography methods for bifurcation lesions: a consensus statement update from the European Bifurcation Club Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic High-Risk Coronary Atherosclerosis: Is It the Plaque Burden, the Calcium, the Lipid, or Something Else? From Nonclinical Research to Clinical Trials and Patient-registries: Challenges and Opportunities in Biomedical Research IVUS Guidance Is Associated With Better Outcome in Patients Undergoing Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting Compared With Angiography Guidance Alone China PEACE risk estimation tool for in-hospital death from acute myocardial infarction: an early risk classification tree for decisions about fibrinolytic therapy How Will the Transition to hs-cTn Affect the Diagnosis of Type 1 and 2 MI? Prognostic Effect and Longitudinal Hemodynamic Assessment of Borderline Pulmonary Hypertension Comparative analysis of recurrent events after presentation with an index myocardial infarction or ischaemic stroke Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Clinical Trial2017 Dec 26;70(25):3077-3087.

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Diagnostic Accuracy of Angiography-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio Measurements for Online Assessment of Coronary Stenosis

Xu B, Tu S, Hu S et al. Keywords: fractional flow reserve; ischemia; quantitative coronary angiography; quantitative flow ratio

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel angiography-based method for deriving fractional flow reserve (FFR) without pressure wire or induction of hyperemia. The accuracy of QFR when assessed online in the catheterization laboratory has not been adequately examined to date.


OBJECTIVES - The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of QFR for the diagnosis of hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis defined by FFR ≤0.80.


METHODS - This prospective, multicenter trial enrolled patients who had at least 1 lesion with a diameter stenosis of 30% to 90% and a reference diameter ≥2 mm according to visual estimation. QFR, quantitativecoronary angiography (QCA), and wire-based FFR were assessed online in blinded fashion during coronaryangiography and re-analyzed offline at an independent core laboratory. The primary endpoint was that QFR would improve the diagnostic accuracy of coronary angiography such that the lower boundary of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of this estimate exceeded 75%.


RESULTS - Between June and July 2017, a total of 308 patients were consecutively enrolled at 5 centers. Online QFR and FFR results were both obtained in 328 of 332 interrogated vessels. Patient- and vessel-level diagnostic accuracy of QFR was 92.4% (95% CI: 88.9% to 95.1%) and 92.7% (95% CI: 89.3% to 95.3%), respectively, both of which were significantly higher than the pre-specified target value (p < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity in identifying hemodynamically significant stenosis were significantly higher for QFR than for QCA (sensitivity: 94.6% vs. 62.5%; difference: 32.0% [p < 0.001]; specificity: 91.7% vs. 58.1%; difference: 36.1% [p < 0.001]). Positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio for QFR were 85.5%, 97.1%, 11.4, and 0.06. Offline analysis also revealed that vessel-level QFR had a high diagnostic accuracy of 93.3% (95% CI: 90.0% to 95.7%).


CONCLUSIONS - The study met its prespecified primary performance goal for the level of diagnostic accuracy of QFR in identifying hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis. (The FAVOR [Functional Diagnostic Accuracy of Quantitative Flow Ratio in Online Assessment of Coronary Stenosis] II China study]; NCT03191708).


Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.