Angiography-derived functional assessment of left main coronary stenoses.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) in left main (LM) coronary stenoses, using Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) as reference. BACKGROUND: QFR has demonstrated a high accuracy in determining the functional relevance of coronary stenoses in non-LM. However, there is an important paucity of data regarding its diagnostic value in the specific anatomical subset of LM disease. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational, multicenter, international, and blinded study including patients with LM stenoses. Cases with significant ostial LM disease were excluded. QFR was calculated from conventional angiograms at blinded fashion with respect to FFR. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients with LM stenoses were analyzed. Overall, LM had intermediate severity, both from angiographic (diameter stenosis [%DS] 43.8 ± 11.1%) and functional perspective (FFR 0.756 ± 0.105). Mean QFR was 0.733 ± 0.159. Correlation between QFR and FFR was moderate (r = 0.590). Positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity and specificity were 85.4%, 64%, 85.4%, and 69.6% respectively. Classification agreement of QFR and FFR in terms of functional stenosis severity was 78.1%. Area under the receiver operating characteristics of QFR using FFR as reference was 0.82 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.93], and significantly better than angiographic evaluation including %DS (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.45 [95% CI, 0.32-0.58], p < 0.001) and minimum lumen diameter (AUC 0.60 [95% CI, 0.47-0.74], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with FFR, QFR has acceptable diagnostic performance in determining the functional relevance of LM stenosis, being better than conventional angiographic assessment. Nonetheless, caution should be taken when applying functional angiography techniques for the assessment of LM stenosis given its particular anatomical characteristics.

Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Assessment of Lesion Hemodynamic Significance and Explanation of their Discrepancies. International, Multicenter and Prospective Trial: The FiGARO Study.

Background The FiGARO (FFR versus iFR in Assessment of Hemodynamic Lesion Significance, and an Explanation of Their Discrepancies) trial is a prospective registry searching for predictors of fractional flow reserve/instantaneous wave-free ratio (FFR/iFR) discrepancy. Methods and Results FFR/iFR were analyzed using a Verrata wire, and coronary flow reserve was analyzed using a Combomap machine (both Philips-Volcano). The risk polymorphisms for endothelial nitric oxide synthase and for heme oxygenase-1 were analyzed. In total, 1884 FFR/iFR measurements from 1564 patients were included. The FFR/iFR discrepancy occurred in 393 measurements (20.9%): FFRp (positive)/iFRn (negative) type (264 lesions, 14.0%) and FFRn/iFRp (129 lesions, 6.8%) type. Coronary flow reserve was measured in 343 lesions, correlating better with iFR (R=0.56, P<0.0001) than FFR (R=0.36, P<0.0001). The coronary flow reserve value in FFRp/iFRn lesions (2.24±0.7) was significantly higher compared with both FFRp/iFRp (1.39±0.36), and FFRn/iFRn lesions (1.8±0.64, P<0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis confirmed (1) sex, age, and lesion location in the right coronary artery as predictors for FFRp/iFRn discrepancy; and (2) hemoglobin level, smoking, and renal insufficiency as predictors for FFRn/iFRp discrepancy. The FFRn/iFRp type of discrepancy was significantly more frequent in patients with both risk types of polymorphisms (endothelial nitric oxide synthaser+heme oxygenase-1r): 8 patients (24.2%) compared with FFRp/iFRn type of discrepancy: 2 patients (5.9%), P=0.03. Conclusions Predictors for FFRp/iFRn discrepancy were sex, age, and location in the right coronary artery. Predictors for FFRn/iFRp were hemoglobin level, smoking, and renal insufficiency. The risk type of polymorphism in endothelial nitric oxide synthase and heme oxygenase-1 genes was more frequently found in patients with FFRn/iFRp type of discrepancy. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03033810.

Heart Team risk assessment with angiography-derived fractional flow reserve determining the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease: Trial design and rationale for the DECISION QFR randomized trial.

In patients with multivessel disease (MVD), functional information on lesions improves the prognostic capability of the SYNTAX score. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR®) is an angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) that does not require a pressure wire or pharmacological hyperemia. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of QFR-based patient information in Heart Teams' discussions to determine the optimal revascularization strategy for patients with MVD. We hypothesized that there is an acceptable agreement between treatment recommendations based on the QFR approach and recommendation based on the FFR approach. The DECISION QFR study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that will include patients with MVD who require revascularization. Two Heart Teams comprising cardiologists and cardiac surgeons will be randomized to select a revascularization strategy (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft) according to patient information either based on QFR or on FFR. All 260 patients will be assessed by both teams with reference to the anatomical and functional SYNTAX score/SYNTAX score II 2020 derived from the allocated physiological index (QFR or FFR). The primary endpoint of the trial is the level of agreement between the treatment recommendations of both teams, assessed using Cohen's κ. As of March 2022, the patient enrollment has been completed and 230 patients have been discussed in both Heart Teams. The current trial will indicate the usefulness of QFR, which enables a wireless multivessel physiological interrogation, in the discussions of Heart Teams to determine the optimal revascularization strategy for MVD.

Determination of the Optimal Measurement Point for Fractional Flow Reserve Derived From CTA Using Pressure Wire Assessment as Reference.

BACKGROUND. For clinical decision making, it was recently recommended that values of fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from coronary CTA (FFRCT) be measured 1-2 cm distal to the stenosis, given the potential for overestimation of ischemia when FFRCT values at far distal segments are used. Supporting data are, however, lacking. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of FFRCT values measured 1-2 cm distal to the stenosis and at more distal locations relative to invasive FFR values. METHODS. FFRCT and invasive FFR values for 365 vessels in 253 patients identified from the Assessing Diagnostic Value of Noninvasive FFRCT in Coronary Care (ADVANCE) registry were prospectively assessed. FFRCT values were measured 1-2 cm distal to the stenosis and at the pressure wire position and far distal segments. The diagnostic accuracy of FFRCT was assessed on the basis of the ROC AUC. The AUC of FFRCT was calculated using FFRCT as an explanatory variable and an invasive FFR of 0.80 or less as the dichotomous dependent variable. RESULTS. The AUC of FFRCT values measured 1-2 cm distal to the stenosis (0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88) was higher (p = .002) than that of FFRCT values measured at far distal segments (0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.84) and similar (p = .16) to that of FFRCT values measured at the pressure wire position (0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89). FFRCT values measured 1-2 cm distal to the stenosis and at far distal segments had sensitivity of 87% versus 92% (p = .003), specificity of 73% versus 42% (p < .001), PPV of 75% versus 59% (p < .001), and NPV of 86% versus 85% (p = .72), respectively. Subgroup analyses of lesions of the left anterior descending coronary artery, left circumflex coronary artery, and right coronary artery all showed improved specificity and PPV (all p < .005) for FFRCT values measured 1-2 cm distal to the stenosis compared with values measured at the pressure wire position. However, the AUC was higher for measurements obtained 1-2 cm distal to the stenosis versus those obtained at far distal segments, for left anterior descending coronary artery lesions (p < .001) but not for left circumflex coronary artery lesions (p = .27) or right coronary artery lesions (p = .91). CONCLUSION. The diagnostic performance of FFRCT values measured 1-2 cm distal to the stenosis was higher than that of FFRCT values measured at far distal segments and was similar to that of FFRCT values measured at the pressure wire position in evaluating ischemic status, particularly for left anterior descending coronary artery lesions. CLINICAL IMPACT. The present study supports recent recommendations from experts to use FFRCT measured 1-2 cm distal to the stenosis, rather than measurements obtained at far distal segments, in clinical decision making.

Difference in functional assessment of individual stenosis severity in serial coronary lesions between resting and hyperemic pressure-wire pullback: Insights from the GIFT registry.

BACKGROUND: Identifying the individual hemodynamic significance of tandem coronary artery lesions can be complicated by the crosstalk phenomenon which occurs between serial stenoses under hyperemic conditions. Physiological assessments performed under resting conditions are considered to be, theoretically, less affected by the hemodynamic interaction between serial coronary stenoses. The purpose of this study was to assess whether pressure-wire (PW) pullback measurements at rest and during hyperemia provided different information as to which stenosis appeared to be most functionally significant. METHODS: In consecutive patients with angiographically discrete serial lesions, physiological lesion predominance (i.e. proximal or distal) was defined according to the pressure gradient along the vessels on PW-pullback trace. We used instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) based assessment as the reference standard and compared fractional flow reserve (FFR) based and hyperemic-iFR based lesion predominance. RESULTS: Eighty-eight vessels (70 patients, mean age 70.3 ± 9.4 years, 80% male) were included in this study. Median iFR, FFR and hyperemic-iFR were 0.85 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.74 to 0.91), 0.73 (IQR: 0.65 to 0.80) and 0.60 (IQR: 0.49 to 0.71), respectively. When judged against iFR-pullback based physiological assessment, lesion predominance changed in 22.7% (20/88) in FFR and in 20.5% (18/88) in hyperemic-iFR, respectively. There was no statistical difference between FFR and hyperemic-iFR for the impact on these changes (p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: In serial coronary lesions, hyperemic PW-pullback disagreed with resting PW-pullback on the lesion-specific identification of ischemia in approximately 20% of cases, either in whole cardiac cycle or in wave-free period.

QFR Versus FFR Derived From Computed Tomography for Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic performance between quantitative flow ratio (QFR) derived from coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography (FFRCT) using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard. BACKGROUND: QFR and FFRCT are recently developed, less invasive techniques for functional assessment of coronary artery disease. METHODS: QFR, FFRCT, and FFR were measured in 152 patients (233 vessels) with stable coronary artery disease. RESULTS: QFR was highly correlated with FFR (r = 0.78; p < 0.001), whereas FFRCT was moderately correlated with FFR (r = 0.63; p < 0.001). Both QFR and FFRCT showed moderately good agreement with FFR, presenting small values of mean difference but large values of root mean squared deviation (FFR-QFR, 0.02 ± 0.09; FFR-FFRCT, 0.03 ± 0.11). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of QFR ≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 were 90%, 82%, 81%, and 90%, respectively. Those of FFRCT ≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 were 82%, 70%, 70%, and 82%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of QFR ≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81% to 89%), whereas that of FFRCT ≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 was 76% (95% CI: 70% to 80%). CONCLUSIONS: QFR and FFRCT showed significant correlation with FFR. Mismatches between QFR and FFR and between FFRCT and FFR were frequent.