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.

Predictive value of post-percutaneous coronary intervention fractional flow reserve: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: We aimed to investigate the relationship between post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) fractional flow reserve (FFR) and clinical outcome using a systematic review with a study-level meta-analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched for articles with clinical follow-up reporting mean or median final post-PCI FFR. The main outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Meta-regression analyses were performed on mean post-PCI FFR values. A total of 62 studies with 12 340 patients and 12 923 stented vessels were included, with follow-ups ranging from 1 to 89 months. Post-PCI FFR was not continuously associated with the rate of 1-year MACE or 1-year TVR using meta-regression models accounting for heterogeneous follow-up lengths. For studies comparing high vs. low post-PCI FFR, low post-PCI FFR was associated with high risk ratio for MACE {1.97 [95% confidence interval (CI):1.45-2.67]}, all-cause death [1.59 (95% CI: 1.08-2.34)], MI [3.18 (95% CI: 1.84-5.50)], TVR [2.08 (95% CI: 1.63-2.65)] and angina status [2.50 (95% CI: 1.53-4.06)] using different optimal cut-off values spanning from 0.80 to 0.95. CONCLUSION: We found no clear continuous association between post-PCI FFR and clinical outcomes in this systematic study-level meta-analysis. In a subset of studies investigating binary classification, high post-PCI FFR was associated with a better clinical outcome than low post-PCI FFR.We investigated the relationship between post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) fractional flow reserve (FFR) and rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR), using a systematic review and study-level meta-analysis, pooling 12 340 patients from 62 studies. Mean post-PCI FFR was not continuously associated with a 1-year MACE rate accounting for heterogenous follow-up lengths. Still, the risk ratio favoured high post-PCI FFR for reduced MACE, all-cause death, MI, TVR, and better angina status using different cut-offs.

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.

Immediate post-procedural functional assessment of percutaneous coronary intervention: current evidence and future directions.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by coronary physiology provides symptomatic benefit and improves patient outcomes. Nevertheless, over one-fourth of patients still experience recurrent angina or major adverse cardiac events following the index procedure. Coronary angiography, the current workhorse for evaluating PCI efficacy, has limited ability to identify suboptimal PCI results. Accumulating evidence supports the usefulness of immediate post-procedural functional assessment. This review discusses the incidence and possible mechanisms behind a suboptimal physiology immediately after PCI. Furthermore, we summarize the current evidence base supporting the usefulness of immediate post-PCI functional assessment for evaluating PCI effectiveness, guiding PCI optimization, and predicting clinical outcomes. Multiple observational studies and post hoc analyses of datasets from randomized trials demonstrated that higher post-PCI functional results are associated with better clinical outcomes as well as a reduced rate of residual angina and repeat revascularization. As such, post-PCI functional assessment is anticipated to impact patient management, secondary prevention, and resource utilization. Pre-PCI physiological guidance has been shown to improve clinical outcomes and reduce health care costs. Whether similar benefits can be achieved using post-PCI physiological assessment requires evaluation in randomized clinical outcome trials.

Resting distal to aortic pressure ratio and fractional flow reserve discordance affects the diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio: Results from an individual patient data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) related to fractional flow reserve (FFR) and resting distal-to-aortic pressure ratio (resting Pd/Pa) concordance. BACKGROUND: QFR is a method for computation of FFR based on standard coronary angiography. It is unclear how QFR is performed in patients with discordance between FFR and resting pressure ratios (distal-to-aortic pressure ratio [Pd/Pa]). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The main comparison was the diagnostic performance of QFR with FFR as reference stratified by correspondence between FFR and resting Pd/Pa. Secondary outcome measures included distribution of clinical or procedural characteristics stratified by FFR and resting Pd/Pa correspondence. RESULTS: Four prospective studies matched the inclusion criteria. Analysis was performed on patient level data reaching a total of 759 patients and 887 vessels with paired FFR, QFR, and resting Pd/Pa. Median FFR was 0.85 (IQR: 0.77-0.90). Diagnostic accuracy of QFR with FFR as reference was higher if FFR corresponded to resting Pd/Pa: accuracy 90% (95% CI: 88-92) versus 72% (95% CI: 64-80), p < .001, and sAUC 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) versus 0.73 (95% CI: 0.69-0.77), p < .001. Resting Pd/Pa and FFR discordance were related to age, sex, hypertension, and lesion severity. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic performance of QFR with FFR as reference is reduced for lesions with discordant FFR (≤0.80) and resting Pd/Pa (≤0.92) measurements.

Diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio in prospectively enrolled patients: An individual patient-data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to provide robust performance estimates for quantitative flow ratio (QFR) in assessment of intermediary coronary lesions. BACKGROUND: Angiography-based functional lesion assessment by QFR may appear as a cost saving and safe approach to expand the use of physiology-guided percutaneous coronary interventions. QFR was proven feasible and showed good diagnostic performance in mid-sized off-line and on-line studies with fractional flow reserve (FFR) as reference standard. METHODS: We performed a collaborative individual patient-data meta-analysis of all available prospective studies with paired assessment of QFR and FFR using the CE-marked QFR application. The main outcome was agreement of QFR and FFR using a two-step analysis strategy with a multilevel mixed model accounting for study and center level variation. RESULTS: Of 16 studies identified, four studies had prospective enrollment and provided patient level data reaching a total of 819 patients and 969 vessels with paired FFR and QFR: FAVOR Pilot (n = 73); WIFI II (n = 170); FAVOR II China (n = 304) and FAVOR II Europe-Japan (n = 272). We found an overall agreement (mean difference 0.009 ± 0.068, I2 = 39.6) of QFR with FFR. The diagnostic performance was sensitivity 84% (95%CI: 77-90, I2 = 70.1), specificity 88% (95%CI: 84-91, I2 = 60.1); positive predictive value 80% (95%CI: 76-85, I2 = 33.4), and negative predictive value 95% (95%CI: 93-96, I2 = 75.9). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performance of QFR was good with FFR as reference in this meta-analysis of high quality studies. QFR could provide an easy, safe, and cost-effective solution for functional evaluation of coronary artery stenosis.

Diagnostic Performance of In-Procedure Angiography-Derived Quantitative Flow Reserve Compared to Pressure-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: The FAVOR II Europe-Japan Study.

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 AND RESULTS: 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.

Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stenosis by Quantitative Flow Ratio During Invasive Coronary Angiography: The WIFI II Study (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II).

BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel diagnostic modality for functional testing of coronary artery stenosis without the use of pressure wires and induction of hyperemia. QFR is based on computation of standard invasive coronary angiographic imaging. The purpose of WIFI II (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II) was to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of QFR in unselected consecutive patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: WIFI II was a predefined substudy to the Dan-NICAD study (Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease), referring 362 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease on coronary computed tomographic angiography for diagnostic invasive coronary angiography. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured in all segments with 30% to 90% diameter stenosis. Blinded observers calculated QFR (Medis Medical Imaging bv, The Netherlands) for comparison with FFR. FFR was measured in 292 lesions from 191 patients. Ten (5%) and 9 patients (5%) were excluded because of FFR and angiographic core laboratory criteria, respectively. QFR was successfully computed in 240 out of 255 lesions (94%) with a mean diameter stenosis of 50±12%. Mean difference between FFR and QFR was 0.01±0.08. QFR correctly classified 83% of the lesions using FFR with cutoff at 0.80 as reference standard. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.91) with a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 77%, 86%, 75%, and 87%, respectively. A QFR-FFR hybrid approach based on the present results enables wire-free and adenosine-free procedures in 68% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Functional lesion evaluation by QFR assessment showed good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with FFR. Studies comparing clinical outcome after QFR- and FFR-based diagnostic strategies are required. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02264717.