Fractional flow reserve, quantitative flow ratio, and instantaneous wave-free ratio: a comparison of the procedure-related dose of ionising radiation.

INTRODUCTION

The development of interventional cardiology increases the number of invasive procedures which are inevitably associated with increased exposure to ionizing radiation and associated risks. A percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) substantiated by evaluation of the coronary artery lesion's functional significance is recommended by both European and American cardiologists. Nevertheless, the prevalence of physiology-guided PCIs does not exceed 10% all over the globe.

AIM

To identify the physiology evaluation method which is associated with the lowest exposure to ionising radiation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Anonymised data of 421 patients with stable angina pectoris for whom elective coronary artery angiography followed by physiological assessment of intermediate coronary artery stenosis was performed were prospectively included in this study. Only diagnostic-procedure-related data of dose of ionizing radiation were analysed. Physiological assessment of coronary artery lesions was performed by fractional flow reserve (FFR), quantitative flow ratio (QFR), or instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR).

RESULTS

Compared to FFR as a reference, fluoroscopy time (FT) was almost half in QFR and almost double in iFR, < 0.001. QFR was associated with more than 3 times shorter FT compared to iFR. The dose area product was 663.87 ±260.51 cGy/cm ( = 0.03) lower in QFR compared to iFR.

CONCLUSIONS

QFR is associated with significantly reduced exposure to ionising radiation compared to both FFR and iFR. Therefore, wider QFR application in clinical practice could eliminate any additional exposure to ionising radiation and increase the prevalence of physiology-guided coronary artery revascularization.