Department of Cardiology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos IDISSC and Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Apr 23;11(8):741-753. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.02.014.
The authors sought to evaluate the influence of coronary microcirculatory dysfunction (CMD) on the diagnostic performance of the quantitative flow ratio (QFR).
Functional angiographic assessment of coronary stenoses based on fluid dynamics, such as QFR, constitutes an attractive alternative to fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, it is unknown whether CMD affects the reliability of angiography-based functional indices.
FFR and the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) were measured in 300 vessels (248 patients) as part of a multicenter international registry. QFR was calculated at a blinded core laboratory. Vessels were classified into 2 groups according to microcirculatory status: low IMR (<23 U), and high IMR (≥23 U, CMD). The impact of CMD on the diagnostic performance of QFR, as well as on incremental value of QFR over quantitative angiography, was assessed using FFR as reference.
Percent diameter stenosis (%DS) and FFR were similar in low- and high-IMR groups (%DS 51 ± 12% vs. 53 ± 11%; p = 0.16; FFR 0.80 ± 0.11 vs. 0.81 ± 0.11; p = 0.23, respectively). In the overall cohort, classification agreement (CA) between QFR and FFR and diagnostic efficiency of QFR (area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve [AUC]) were high (CA: 88%; AUC: 0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90 to 0.96]). However, when assessed according to microcirculatory status, a significantly lower CA and AUC of QFR were found in the high-IMR group as compared with the low-IMR group (CA: 76% vs. 92%; p < 0.001; AUC: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.79 to 0.94] vs. 0.96 [95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98]; p < 0.05). Compared with angiographic assessment, QFR increased by 0.20 (p < 0.001) and by 0.16 (p < 0.001) the AUC of %DS in low- and high-IMR groups, respectively. Independent predictors of misclassification between QFR and FFR were high IMR and acute coronary syndrome.
CMD decreases the diagnostic performance of QFR. However, even in the presence of CMD, QFR remains superior to angiography alone in ascertaining functional stenosis severity.
作者旨在评估冠状动脉微循环功能障碍(CMD)对定量血流比值(QFR)诊断性能的影响。
基于流体动力学的冠状动脉狭窄功能评估,如 QFR,是对血流储备分数(FFR)的一种有吸引力的替代方法。然而,目前尚不清楚 CMD 是否会影响基于血管造影的功能指标的可靠性。
在一项多中心国际注册研究中,对 300 支血管(248 例患者)进行了 FFR 和微血管阻力指数(IMR)的测量。在盲法核心实验室计算 QFR。根据微循环状态将血管分为两组:低 IMR(<23 U)和高 IMR(≥23 U,CMD)。以 FFR 为参考,评估 CMD 对 QFR 诊断性能的影响,以及 QFR 相对于定量血管造影的增量价值。
低 IMR 组和高 IMR 组的直径狭窄百分比(%DS)和 FFR 相似(%DS:51±12% vs. 53±11%;p=0.16;FFR:0.80±0.11 vs. 0.81±0.11;p=0.23)。在整个队列中,QFR 与 FFR 的分类一致性(CA)和 QFR 的诊断效率(受试者工作特征曲线下面积[AUC])均较高(CA:88%;AUC:0.93[95%置信区间(CI):0.90 至 0.96])。然而,根据微循环状态评估,与低 IMR 组相比,高 IMR 组的 QFR CA 和 AUC 显著降低(CA:76% vs. 92%;p<0.001;AUC:0.88[95%CI:0.79 至 0.94] vs. 0.96[95%CI:0.92 至 0.98];p<0.05)。与血管造影评估相比,QFR 在低 IMR 组和高 IMR 组分别增加了 0.20(p<0.001)和 0.16(p<0.001)的%DS AUC。QFR 与 FFR 分类错误的独立预测因素是高 IMR 和急性冠脉综合征。
CMD 降低了 QFR 的诊断性能。然而,即使存在 CMD,QFR 在确定功能狭窄严重程度方面仍优于单纯血管造影。