Performance of quantitative flow ratio in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) pre transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD). Post-TAVI fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) was used as reference. BACKGROUND: CAD is prevalent in patients with AS, but the hemodynamics of AS confounds evaluation using pressure wire-based assessments. QFR might be less sensitive to the presence of AS thereby allowing for CAD evaluation before aortic valve replacement. Further, QFR does not require the use of pressure wire and therefore has the potential for reducing costs and complications related to insertion of a coronary pressure wire. METHODS: The diagnostic performance of QFR in coronary angiograms from 28 patients undergoing TAVI was evaluated. In all patients, both FFR and iFR were measured pre- and immediately post-TAVI while QFR was measured pre-TAVI. RESULTS: Using post-TAVI FFR and iFR as reference the diagnostic accuracy of pre-TAVI QFR were 83% (95%CI; 68-97) and 52% (95%CI; 30-74) p = .008, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-TAVI QFR showed a good diagnostic performance using post-TAVI FFR as reference. QFR could become a wire-free, safe, and quick way of evaluating CAD in patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI.

Quantitative flow ratio for immediate assessment of nonculprit lesions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-An iSTEMI substudy.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) assessment of nonculprit lesions (NCLs) based on acute setting angiograms obtained in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with QFR, fractional flow reserve (FFR), and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in the staged setting as reference. BACKGROUND: QFR is an angiography-based approach for the functional evaluation of coronary artery lesions. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of the iSTEMI study. NCLs were assessed with iFR in the acute setting and with iFR and FFR at staged (median 13 days) follow-up. Acute and staged QFR values were computed in a core laboratory based on the coronary angiography recordings. Diagnostic cut-off values were ≤0.80 for QFR and FFR, and ≤0.89 for iFR. RESULTS: Staged iFR and FFR data were available for 146 NCLs in 112 patients in the iSTEMI study. Among these, QFR analysis was feasible in 103 (71%) lesions assessed in the acute setting with a mean QFR value of 0.82 (IQR: 0.73-0.91). Staged QFR, FFR, and iFR were 0.80 (IQR: 0.70-0.90), 0.81 (IQR: 0.71-0.88), and 0.91 (IQR: 0.87-0.96), respectively. Classification agreement of acute and staged QFR was 93% (95%Cl: 87-99). The classification agreement of acute QFR was 84% (95%CI: 76-90) using staged FFR as reference and 74% (95%CI: 65-83) using staged iFR as reference. CONCLUSIONS: Acute QFR showed a very good diagnostic performance with staged QFR as reference, a good diagnostic performance with staged FFR as reference, and a moderate diagnostic performance with staged iFR as reference.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent in primary percutaneous coronary intervention of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of a metallic drug-eluting stent (DES) is the standard treatment for patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Implantation of a bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) during STEMI represents a novel strategy without intravascular metal. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate 12-month healing response in an STEMI population after implantation of either the Absorb BRS or Xience DES (Abbott Vascular, USA). METHODS: The present trial was a prospective, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, noninferiority study with planned inclusion of 120 patients with STEMI. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with Absorb BRS or Xience DES. Implantation result and healing response were evaluated by angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) at baseline and 12-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was minimum flow area (MFA) assessed at 12 months. Coronary stent healing index (CSHI) was calculated from OCT images. RESULTS: Out of 66 included patients, 58 had follow-up OCT after 12 months, and 49 entered matched analysis. One death occurred in each group; none were stent-related. MFA was 5.13 ± 1.70 mm2 (95% CI, 4.44-5.82) in the BRS group compared with 6.30 ± 2.49 mm2 (95% CI, 5.22-7.37) (P = 0.06) in the DES group. Noninferiority could not be evaluated. CSHI for both groups had a median score of 3. CONCLUSION: The DES group performed numerically better in primary and secondary endpoints, but the CSHI showed good stent healing in both groups.

Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: design and rationale of the randomised FAVOR III Europe Japan trial.

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) based on invasive coronary angiographic images. Calculating QFR is less invasive than measuring FFR and may be associated with lower costs. Current evidence supports the call for an adequately powered randomised comparison of QFR and FFR for the evaluation of intermediate coronary stenosis. The aim of the FAVOR III Europe Japan trial is to investigate if a QFR-based diagnostic strategy yields a non-inferior 12-month clinical outcome compared with a standard FFR-guided strategy in the evaluation of patients with intermediary coronary stenosis. FAVOR III Europe Japan is an investigator-initiated, randomised, clinical outcome, non-inferiority trial scheduled to randomise 2,000 patients with either 1) stable angina pectoris and intermediate coronary stenosis, or 2) indications for functional assessment of at least 1 non-culprit lesion after acute myocardial infarction. Up to 40 international centres will randomise patients to either a QFR-based or a standard FFR-based diagnostic strategy. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events is a composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, and any unplanned coronary revascularisation at 12 months. QFR could emerge as an adenosine- and wire-free alternative to FFR, making the functional evaluation of intermediary coronary stenosis less invasive and more cost-effective.

Characterization of quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve discordance using doppler flow and clinical follow-up.

The physiological mechanisms of quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve disagreement are not fully understood. We aimed to characterize the coronary flow and resistance profile of intermediate stenosed epicardial coronary arteries with concordant and discordant FFR and QFR. Post-hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLOW study. Anatomical and Doppler-derived physiological parameters were compared for lesions with FFR+QFR- (n = 18) vs. FFR+QFR+ (n = 43) and for FFR-QFR+ (n = 34) vs. FFR-QFR- (n = 139). The association of QFR results with the two-year rate of target vessel failure was assessed in the proportion of vessels (n = 195) that did not undergo revascularization. Coronary flow reserve was higher [2.3 (IQR: 2.1-2.7) vs. 1.9 (IQR: 1.5-2.4)], hyperemic microvascular resistance lower [1.72 (IQR: 1.48-2.31) vs. 2.26 (IQR: 1.79-2.87)] and anatomical lesion severity less severe [% diameter stenosis 45.5 (IQR: 41.5-52.5) vs. 58.5 (IQR: 53.1-64.0)] for FFR+QFR- lesions compared with FFR+QFR+ lesions. In comparison of FFR-QFR+ vs. FFR-QFR- lesions, lesion severity was more severe [% diameter stenosis 55.2 (IQR: 51.7-61.3) vs. 43.4 (IQR: 35.0-50.6)] while coronary flow reserve [2.2 (IQR: 1.9-2.9) vs. 2.2 (IQR: 1.9-2.6)] and hyperemic microvascular resistance [2.34 (IQR: 1.85-2.81) vs. 2.57 (IQR: 2.01-3.22)] did not differ. The agreement and diagnostic performance of FFR using hyperemic stenosis resistance (> 0.80) as reference standard was higher compared with QFR and coronary flow reserve. Disagreement between FFR and QFR is partly explained by physiological and anatomical factors. Clinical Trials Registration https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01813435. Changes in central physiological and anatomical parameters according to FFR and QFR match/mismatch quadrants.

Three-Dimensional Angiographic Characteristics versus Functional Stenosis Severity in Fractional and Coronary Flow Reserve Discordance: A DEFINE FLOW Sub Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary angiography alone is insufficient to identify lesions associated with myocardial ischemia that may benefit from revascularization. Coronary physiology parameters may improve clinical decision making in addition to coronary angiography, but the association between 2D and 3D qualitative coronary angiography (QCA) and invasive pressure and flow measurements is yet to be elucidated. METHODS: We associated invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR) and coronary flow capacity (CFC) with 2D- and 3D-QCA in 430 intermediate lesions of 366 patients. RESULTS: Overall, 2D-QCA analysis resulted in less severe stenosis severity compared with 3D-QCA analysis. FFR+/CFR- lesions had similar 3D-QCA characteristics as FFR+/CFR+ lesions. In contrast, vessels with FFR-/CFR+ discordance had 3D-QCA characteristics similar to those of vessels with concordant FFR-/CFR-. Contrarily, FFR+/CFR- lesions had CFC similar to that of as FFR-/CFR- lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Non-flow-limiting lesions (FFR+/CFR-) have 3D-QCA characteristics similar to those of FFR+/CFR+, but the majority are not associated with inducible myocardial ischemia as determined by invasive CFC. FFR-/CFR+ lesions have 3D-QCA characteristics similar to those of FFR-/CFR- lesions but are more frequently associated with a moderately to severely reduced CFC, illustrating the angiographic-functional mismatch in discordant lesions.

Reproducibility of quantitative flow ratio: the QREP study.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a tool for physiological lesion assessment based on invasive coronary angiography. AIMS: We aimed to assess the reproducibility of QFR computed from the same angiograms as assessed by multiple observers from different, international sites. METHODS: We included 50 patients previously enrolled in dedicated QFR studies. QFR was computed twice, one month apart by five blinded observers. The main analysis was the coefficient of variation (CV) as a measure of intra- and inter-observer reproducibility. Key secondary analysis was the identification of clinical and procedural characteristics predicting reproducibility. RESULTS: The intra-observer CV ranged from 2.3% (1.5-2.8) to 10.2% (6.6-12.0) among the observers. The inter-observer CV was 9.4% (8.0-10.5). The QFR observer, low angiographic quality, and low fractional flow reserve (FFR) were independent predictors of a large absolute difference between repeated QFR measurements defined as a difference larger than the median difference (>0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The inter- and intra-observer reproducibility for QFR computed from the same angiograms ranged from high to poor among multiple observers from different sites with an average agreement of 0.01±0.08 for repeated measurements. The reproducibility was dependent on the observer, angiographic quality and the coronary artery stenosis severity as assessed by FFR.

Comparison of quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and cardiovascular magnetic resonance as reference standard. A Dan-NICAD substudy.

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) have not yet been compared head to head with perfusion imaging as reference for myocardial ischemia. We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of QFR and FFR with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) or cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) as reference. This study is a predefined post hoc analysis of the Dan-NICAD study (NCT02264717). Patients with suspected coronary artery disease by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) were randomized 1:1 to MPS or CMR and were referred to invasive coronary angiography with FFR and predefined QFR assessment. Paired data with FFR, QFR and MPS or CMR were available for 232 vessels with stenosis in 176 patients. Perfusion defects were detected in 57 vessel territories (25%). For QFR and FFR the diagnostic accuracy was 61% and 57% (p = 0.18) and area under the receiver operating curve was 0.64 vs. 0.58 (p = 0.22). Stenoses with absolute indication for stenting due to diameter stenosis > 90% by visual estimate were not classified as significant by either QFR or MPS/CMR in 21% (7 of 34) of cases. The diagnostic performance of QFR and FFR was similar but modest with MPS or CMR as reference. Comparable performance levels for QFR and FFR are encouraging for this pressure wire-free diagnostic method.

Accuracy of 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography for predicting physiological significance of coronary stenosis: a FAVOR II substudy.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) enables reconstruction of a coronary artery in 3D from two angiographic image projections. This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-QCA vs. 2-dimensional (2D) QCA in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis, using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard. METHODS: All interrogated vessels in the FAVOR II China study and the FAVOR II Europe-Japan study were assessed by 2D-QCA and 3D-QCA according to standard operating procedures in core laboratories. QCA analysts were blinded to the corresponding FFR values. RESULTS: A total of 645 vessels from 576 patients with 3D-QCA, 2D-QCA, and FFR were analyzed. Using the conventional cut-off value of 50% for percent diameter stenosis (DS%), 3D-QCA was more accurate in predicting FFR ≤0.80 than 2D-QCA [accuracy 74.0% (95% CI: 69.9-77.7%) vs. 64.9% (95% CI: 61.3-68.7%), difference: 9.1%, P<0.001]. Sensitivity was higher by 3D-QCA compared with 2D-QCA [69.1% (95% CI: 63.0-75.1%) vs. 47.1% (95% CI: 40.5-53.6%), difference: 22.0%, P<0.001] and specificity was similar [76.5% (95% CI: 72.5-80.6%) vs. 74.4% (95% CI: 70.2-78.6%), difference: 2.1%, P=0.40]. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly higher for 3D-QCA than for 2D-QCA [0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84) vs. 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.71), P<0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: 3D-QCA demonstrated better diagnostic performance in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis compared with 2D-QCA, when FFR was used as the reference standard.