Quantitative flow ratio to predict long-term coronary artery bypass graft patency in patients with left main coronary artery disease.

PURPOSE: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been demonstrated in some studies to predict long-term coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) patency. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an emerging technology which may predict FFR. In this study, we hypothesised that QFR would predict long-term CABG patency and that QFR would offer superior diagnostic performance to quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). METHODS: A prospective study was performed on patients with left main coronary artery disease who were undergoing CABG. QFR, QCA and IVUS assessment was performed. Follow-up computed tomography coronary angiography and invasive coronary angiography was undertaken to assess graft patency. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients, comprising of 65 vessels were included in the analysis. At a median follow-up of 3.6 years post CABG (interquartile range, 2.3 to 4.8 years), 12 grafts (18.4%) were occluded. QFR was not statistically significantly higher in occluded grafts (0.81 ± 0.19 vs. 0.69 ± 0.21; P = 0.08). QFR demonstrated a discriminatory power to predict graft occlusion (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.88; P = 0.03). At long-term follow-up, the risk of graft occlusion was higher in vessels with a QFR > 0.80 (58.6% vs. 17.0%; hazard ratio, 3.89; 95% CI, 1.05 to 14.42; P = 0.03 by log-rank test). QCA (minimum lumen diameter, lesion length, diameter stenosis) and IVUS (minimum lumen area, minimum lumen diameter, diameter stenosis) parameters were not predictive of long-term graft patency. CONCLUSIONS: QFR may predict long-term graft patency in patients undergoing CABG.

Diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio, non-hyperaemic pressure indices and fractional flow reserve for the assessment of coronary lesions in severe aortic stenosis.

Background: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) may be used to assess the functional significance of coronary lesions. Only limited validation exists for this technology in the setting of severe aortic stenosis. Methods: A prospective study was performed on patients who were being considered for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. QFR analysis was performed (Medis Medical Imaging System, Leiden, The Netherlands) and compared to invasive measurements of haemodynamic assessment [fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), diastolic pressure ratio during the wave-free period (dPR) and distal arterial pressure/arterial pressure (Pd/Pa)]. Results: A total of 35 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 75.5±6.5 and mean aortic valve gradient was 44.3±11.8 mmHg. There were 57 vessels analysed. The mean FFR was 0.83±0.10 and 22 vessels (39%) had a functionally significant FFR ≤0.80. QFR demonstrated a discriminatory power to predict functionally significant FFR [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84 to 1.00], representing a sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 91%, positive predictive value of 84%, negative predictive value of 84% and an accuracy of 84%. QFR also demonstrated a discriminatory power to predict functionally significant iFR ≤0.89 (AUC =0.92; 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.99), dPR ≤0.89 (AUC =0.90; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.98) and Pd/Pa ≤0.92 (AUC =0.89; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97). Conclusions: QFR demonstrates acceptable diagnostic performance in patients with severe aortic stenosis when both FFR and non-hyperaemic pressure indices are used as reference standards.

Comparison of diagnostic performance between quantitative flow ratio, non-hyperemic pressure indices and fractional flow reserve.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an estimate of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and is derived from 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography. The DILEMMA score is an angiographic technique developed to predict FFR. Unlike other diastolic indices such as instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) and dPR25-75, neither QFR nor DILEMMA score require pressure wires. This study sought to compare the diagnostic performance of QFR, diastolic indices and DILEMMA score to predict FFR. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2013, patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography and FFR assessments were retrospectively studied. iFR and dPR were derived from FFR pressure tracings. QFR was computed using commercial software. RESULTS: Eighty-five lesions (25% FFR significant) were included in this study. Median FFR was 0.88 (0.81-0.92). QFR (rs=0.801), iFR (rs=0.710), dPR (rs=0.716), dPR25-75 (rs=0.715) and DILEMMA score (rs=-0.623) significantly correlated with FFR (P<0.001). QFR ≤0.8 had a specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95%, 86%, 86% and 95% respectively of predicting significant FFR (P<0.001). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed the AUC to predict significant FFR for QFR (0.947), iFR (0.880), dPR (0.883), dPR25-75 (0.880) and DILEMMA score (0.916) were not significantly different. However, QFR was a better predictor of FFR than iFR (0.947 vs. 0.770, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: QFR had excellent correlation and accuracy as measured against FFR. When compared to other diastolic indices and DILEMMA score, QFR performed at least as well as the other indices. QFR predicts FFR better than it predicts iFR. QFR is a convenient tool to assess significance of coronary stenosis and a reliable alternative to pressure-wire based indices. Prospective studies are required to investigate the performance and cost-effectiveness of QFR when independently used to guide clinical decision making.