Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark.
Cardiovascular Institute, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Italy.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Jul 6;7(14):e009603. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009603.
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.
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); <0.001; specificity, 86.9% (81.6-91.1) versus 76.5% (70.3-82.0); =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]; <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]; <0.001).
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.
URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02959814.
定量血流比(QFR)是一种基于 3 维血管重建和对比血流速度估计的新型生理病变评估方法。我们在一项国际多中心研究中评估了在线 QFR 在常规冠状动脉造影术中的应用价值,包括其在操作可行性、诊断性能以及与压力导丝衍生的血流储备分数(FFR)作为金标准的一致性方面的价值。
FAVOR II E-J(基于各种血流重建的功能评估 II 欧洲-日本)是一项前瞻性、观察性、研究者发起的研究。稳定型心绞痛患者在 11 个国际中心入组。所有符合条件的病变均进行 FFR 和在线 QFR 计算。独立核心实验室对所有使用 QFR 和 FFR 评估的病变进行了二维定量冠状动脉造影(2D-QCA)分析。主要比较是 QFR 与 2D-QCA 相比的敏感性和特异性,以 FFR 作为参考标准。共纳入 329 例患者。317 个病变可进行 FFR、QFR 和 2D-QCA 的配对评估。平均 FFR、QFR 和直径狭窄百分比分别为 0.83±0.09、0.82±10 和 45±10%。FFR <0.80 的病变为 104 个(33%)。QFR 的敏感性和特异性明显高于 2D-QCA(敏感性,86.5%(78.4-92.4)比 44.2%(34.5-54.3);<0.001;特异性,86.9%(81.6-91.1)比 76.5%(70.3-82.0);=0.002)。与 2D-QCA 相比,QFR 的受试者工作特征曲线下面积明显更高(受试者工作特征曲线下面积,0.92 [0.89-0.96]比 0.64 [0.57-0.70];<0.001)。QFR 的中位数时间明显低于 FFR 的中位数时间(QFR 的中位数时间为 5.0 分钟[四分位数范围,-6.1],FFR 的中位数时间为 7.0 分钟[四分位数范围,5.0-10.0];<0.001)。
在导管室进行在线 QFR 计算在临床上是可行的,并且优于血管造影评估,使用 FFR 作为参考标准评估中间冠状动脉狭窄。