Kanno Yoshinori, Hoshino Masahiro, Hamaya Rikuta, Sugiyama Tomoyo, Kanaji Yoshihisa, Usui Eisuke, Yamaguchi Masao, Hada Masahiro, Ohya Hiroaki, Sumino Yohei, Hirano Hidenori, Yuki Haruhito, Horie Tomoki, Murai Tadashi, Lee Tetsumin, Yonetsu Taishi, Kakuta Tsunekazu
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Tsuchiura, Japan.
Department of Interventional Cardiology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Open Heart. 2020 Jan 23;7(1):e001179. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2019-001179. eCollection 2020.
Measurement of the contrast-flow quantitative flow ratio (cQFR) is a novel method for rapid computational estimation of fractional flow reserve (FFR). Discordance between FFR and cQFR has not been completely characterised.
We performed a post-hoc analysis of 504 vessels with angiographically intermediate stenosis in 504 patients who underwent measurement of FFR, coronary flow reserve (CFR), the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) and Duke jeopardy score.
In total, 396 (78.6%) and 108 (21.4%) lesions showed concordant and discordant FFR and cQFR functional classifications, respectively. Among lesions with a reduced FFR (FFR+), those with a preserved cQFR (cQFR-) showed significantly lower IMR, shorter mean transit time (Tmn), shorter lesion length (all, p<0.01) and similar CFR and Duke jeopardy scores compared with lesions showing a reduced cQFR (cQFR+). Furthermore, lesions with FFR+ and cQFR- had significantly lower IMR and shorter Tmn compared with lesions showing a preserved FFR (FFR-) and cQFR+. Of note, in cQFR+ lesions, higher IMR lesions were associated with decreased diagnostic accuracy (high-IMR; 63.0% and low-IMR; 75.8%, p<0.01). In contrast, in cQFR- lesions, lower IMR lesions was associated with decreased diagnostic accuracy (high-IMR group; 96.8% and low-IMR group; 80.0%, p<0.01). Notably, in total, 31 territories (6.2%; 'jump out' group) had an FFR above the upper limit of the grey zone (>0.80) and a cQFR below the lower limit (≤0.75). In contrast, five territories (1.0%; 'jump in' group) exhibited opposite results (FFR of ≤0.75 and cQFR of >0.80). The 'jump out' territories showed significantly higher IMR values than 'jump in' territories (p<0.01).
FFR- with cQFR+ is associated with increased microvascular resistance, and FFR+ with cQFR- showed preservation of microvascular function with high coronary flow. Microvascular function affected diagnostic performance of cQFR in relation to functional stenosis significance.
对比血流定量流量比(cQFR)的测量是一种用于快速计算估计血流储备分数(FFR)的新方法。FFR与cQFR之间的不一致尚未完全明确。
我们对504例接受FFR、冠状动脉血流储备(CFR)、微循环阻力指数(IMR)和杜克风险评分测量的患者中504处血管造影显示为中度狭窄的血管进行了事后分析。
总体而言,分别有396处(78.6%)和108处(21.4%)病变的FFR和cQFR功能分类一致和不一致。在FFR降低(FFR+)的病变中,与cQFR降低(cQFR+)的病变相比,cQFR保留(cQFR-)的病变显示出显著更低的IMR、更短的平均通过时间(Tmn)、更短的病变长度(均p<0.01)以及相似的CFR和杜克风险评分。此外,与FFR保留(FFR-)且cQFR+的病变相比,FFR+且cQFR-的病变具有显著更低的IMR和更短的Tmn。值得注意的是,在cQFR+病变中,较高IMR的病变与诊断准确性降低相关(高IMR组为63.0%,低IMR组为75.8%,p<0.01)。相反,在cQFR-病变中,较低IMR的病变与诊断准确性降低相关(高IMR组为96.8%,低IMR组为80.0%,p<0.01)。值得注意的是,总体上有31个区域(6.2%;“跳出”组)的FFR高于灰色区域上限(>0.80)且cQFR低于下限(≤0.75)。相反,有5个区域(1.0%;“跳入”组)呈现相反结果(FFR≤0.75且cQFR>0.80)。“跳出”区域的IMR值显著高于“跳入”区域(p<0.01)。
FFR-且cQFR+与微血管阻力增加相关,而FFR+且cQFR-显示微血管功能在高冠状动脉血流情况下得以保留。微血管功能影响了cQFR在评估功能性狭窄严重程度方面的诊断性能。