Biomedical Instrument Institute, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China (W.Y., D.D., P.W., L.L., B.H., G.L., S.Z., S.T.).
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Gifu Heart Center, Japan (T.T., M.O., H.M.).
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Feb;14(2):e009840. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009840. Epub 2021 Feb 5.
Ultrasonic flow ratio (UFR) is a novel method for fast computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) from intravascular ultrasound images. The objective of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of UFR using wire-based FFR as the reference.
Post hoc computation of UFR was performed in consecutive patients with both intravascular ultrasound and FFR measurement in a core lab while the analysts were blinded to FFR.
A total of 167 paired comparisons between UFR and FFR from 94 patients were obtained. Median FFR was 0.80 (interquartile range, 0.68-0.89) and 50.3% had a FFR≤0.80. Median UFR was 0.81 (interquartile range, 0.69-0.91), and UFR showed strong correlation with FFR (=0.87; <0.001). The area under the curve was higher for UFR than intravascular ultrasound-derived minimal lumen area (0.97 versus 0.89, <0.001). The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio for UFR to identify FFR≤0.80 was 92% (95% CI, 87-96), 91% (95% CI, 82-96), 96% (95% CI, 90-99), 96% (95% CI, 89-99), 91% (95% CI, 93-96), 25.0 (95% CI, 8.2-76.2), and 0.10 (95% CI, 0.05-0.20), respectively. The agreement between UFR and FFR was independent of lesion locations (=0.48), prior myocardial infarction (=0.29), and imaging catheters (=0.22). Intraobserver and interobserver variability of UFR analysis was 0.00±0.03 and 0.01±0.03, respectively. Median UFR analysis time was 102 (interquartile range, 87-122) seconds.
UFR had a strong correlation and good agreement with FFR. The fast computational time and excellent analysis reproducibility of UFR bears the potential of a wider adoption of integration of coronary imaging and physiology in the catheterization laboratory.
超声流量比(UFR)是一种从血管内超声图像快速计算血流储备分数(FFR)的新方法。本研究的目的是评估 UFR 的诊断性能,以基于导丝的 FFR 作为参考。
在核心实验室对接受血管内超声和 FFR 测量的连续患者进行 UFR 的后置计算,而分析人员对 FFR 不知情。
共获得来自 94 例患者的 167 对 UFR 和 FFR 配对比较。中位 FFR 为 0.80(四分位距,0.68-0.89),50.3%的患者 FFR≤0.80。中位 UFR 为 0.81(四分位距,0.69-0.91),UFR 与 FFR 呈强相关性(=0.87;<0.001)。UFR 的曲线下面积高于血管内超声衍生的最小管腔面积(0.97 与 0.89,<0.001)。UFR 识别 FFR≤0.80 的诊断准确性、敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、阳性似然比和阴性似然比分别为 92%(95%CI,87-96)、91%(95%CI,82-96)、96%(95%CI,90-99)、96%(95%CI,89-99)、91%(95%CI,93-96)、25.0(95%CI,8.2-76.2)和 0.10(95%CI,0.05-0.20)。UFR 与 FFR 的一致性独立于病变部位(=0.48)、既往心肌梗死(=0.29)和成像导管(=0.22)。UFR 分析的观察者内和观察者间变异性分别为 0.00±0.03 和 0.01±0.03。UFR 分析的中位时间为 102 秒(四分位距,87-122)。
UFR 与 FFR 具有很强的相关性和良好的一致性。UFR 的快速计算时间和出色的分析可重复性有可能在导管室更广泛地采用冠状动脉成像和生理学的整合。