Diagnostic Performance of In-Procedure Angiography-Derived Quantitative Flow Reserve Compared to Pressure-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: The FAVOR II Europe-Japan Study.
J Am Heart Assoc
; 7(14)2018 07 06.
Article
de En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-29980523
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 ANDRESULTS:
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 with 2D-QCA using FFR as a reference standard. A total of 329 patients were enrolled. Paired assessment of FFR, QFR, and 2D-QCA 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.Mots clés
Texte intégral:
1
Collection:
01-internacional
Base de données:
MEDLINE
Sujet principal:
Coronarographie
/
Vaisseaux coronaires
/
Sténose coronarienne
/
Fraction du flux de réserve coronaire
/
Angine de poitrine
Type d'étude:
Clinical_trials
/
Diagnostic_studies
/
Etiology_studies
/
Observational_studies
/
Prognostic_studies
/
Risk_factors_studies
Limites:
Aged
/
Female
/
Humans
/
Male
Pays/Région comme sujet:
Asia
/
Europa
Langue:
En
Journal:
J Am Heart Assoc
Année:
2018
Type de document:
Article
Pays d'affiliation:
Danemark