ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel method enabling efficient computation of FFR from three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D QCA) and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) frame counting. We decided to perform a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis of the literature to determine the correlation between the diagnosis of functionally significant stenosis obtained by QFR versus FFR and to determine the diagnostic accuracy of QFR for intermediate coronary artery stenosis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies concerning the diagnostic performance of QFR. Our meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model to determine sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The sROC was used to determine diagnostic test accuracy. Results: Nine studies consisting of 1175 vessels in 1047 patients were included in our study. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR-, and DOR for QFR were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91), 6.86 (95% CI,: 5.22-9.02), 0.14 (95% CI: 0.10-0.21), and 53.05 (95% CI: 29.75-94.58), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve for QFR was 0.94. Conclusion: QFR is a simple, useful, and noninvasive modality for diagnosis of functional significance of intermediate coronary artery stenosis.
Subject(s)
Humans , Coronary Angiography/methods , Coronary Stenosis/physiopathology , Coronary Stenosis/diagnostic imaging , Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial/physiology , Regression Analysis , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and Specificity , Imaging, Three-Dimensional/methodsABSTRACT
Abstract Objective: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator has become the first-line therapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death. Controversial results still exist regarding the effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in non-ischemic heart failure. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized trials comparing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in combination with medical treatment versus medical treatment for non-ischemic heart failure. The primary endpoint was incidence of all-cause death. We derived pooled risk ratios with fixed-effects models. Results: Five studies enrolling 2573 patients were included. Compared with medical treatment, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with medical treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (Risk ratio: 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.97). Conclusion: Compared with medical treatment only, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in combination with medical treatment reduces all-cause mortality.