Alfonso Rodríguez Emilio, Gómez-Lara Josep, López-Palop Ramón, Gutiérrez Enrique, Goncalves Ramírez Luis Renier, Valencia José, Jurado-Román Alfonso, Córdoba Soriano Juan Gabriel, Gómez-Menchero Antonio, Fernández-Peregrina Estefanía, Cortés Carlos, Tejedor Paula, Millan Raúl, Sánchez-Elvira Guillermo, García-Camarero Tamara, Linares Vicente José Antonio, Rúmiz Eva, Cardenal Piris Rosa María, Elizondo Rua Irene, Vilchez Jean Paul, Brugaletta Salvatore, Fuentes Lara, Marcano Ana, Carrillo Pilar, Gabaldón Álvaro, Pérez de Prado Armando, Gómez-Hospital Joan Antoni
Servei de Cardiologia, Grup de recerca cardiovascular, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL), Universitat de Barcelona, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Cardiovasculares (CIBERCV), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Servei de Cardiologia, Grup de recerca cardiovascular, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL), Universitat de Barcelona, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Cardiovasculares (CIBERCV), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2025 May 30. doi: 10.1016/j.rec.2025.05.010.
The reliability of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) has been questioned. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of QFR in intermediate nonculprit lesions during the index ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) procedure compared with positive pressure wire-based fractional flow reserve (FFR ≤0.80) in a staged procedure.
This was a substudy of the multicenter, controlled, and randomized VULNERABLE trial, including 428 intermediate nonculprit lesions from 388 consecutive STEMI patients undergoing FFR assessment in a staged procedure between 1 and 60 days. Off-line QFR analyses were performed during both the index and staged procedures. The primary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of index QFR compared with staged positive FFR.
Angiographic vessel diameter (2.80±0.59 vs 2.91±0.57mm; P<.01), stenosis severity (51.33±8.04% vs 50.54±7.63%; P=.053), and QFR values (0.85±0.09 vs 0.86±0.09; P=.120) showed minimal changes between the index and staged procedures. Moderate concordance was observed between index QFR and staged FFR (kappa index=0.629; intraclass correlation coefficient=0.641). The diagnostic accuracy of index QFR for predicting positive FFR was good (area under the curve=0.825). An index QFR cutoff ≤0.80 showed moderate sensitivity (72%) and excellent specificity (91%). An index QFR ≤0.87 achieved a sensitivity of 86% for detecting lesions with positive FFR, with 55% of lesions presenting QFR ≤0.87 at the index procedure.
Index QFR demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for identifying lesions with positive FFR in a staged procedure. However, an index QFR cutoff value of ≤0.80 showed moderate sensitivity and may underdiagnose approximately 3 out of 10 lesions with positive FFR. An index QFR ≤0.87 provided higher sensitivity and may help avoid invasive (staged) procedures in many patients.
定量血流比(QFR)的可靠性受到了质疑。我们的目的是评估在首次ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)手术过程中,QFR对中间非罪犯病变的诊断准确性,并与在分期手术中基于正压导丝的血流储备分数(FFR≤0.80)进行比较。
这是一项多中心、对照和随机的VULNERABLE试验的子研究,纳入了388例连续接受FFR评估的STEMI患者的428处中间非罪犯病变,这些评估在1至60天内进行分期手术。在首次和分期手术期间均进行离线QFR分析。主要目的是评估首次QFR与分期阳性FFR相比的诊断准确性。
造影血管直径(2.80±0.59 vs 2.91±0.57mm;P<0.01)、狭窄严重程度(51.33±8.04% vs 50.54±7.63%;P=0.053)和QFR值(0.85±0.09 vs 0.86±0.09;P=0.120)在首次和分期手术之间显示出最小变化。首次QFR与分期FFR之间观察到中度一致性(kappa指数=0.629;组内相关系数=0.641)。首次QFR预测阳性FFR的诊断准确性良好(曲线下面积=0.825)。首次QFR截止值≤0.80显示出中度敏感性(72%)和出色的特异性(91%)。首次QFR≤0.87对检测FFR阳性病变的敏感性达到86%,在首次手术时有55%的病变QFR≤0.87。
首次QFR在分期手术中对识别FFR阳性病变显示出良好的诊断准确性。然而,首次QFR截止值≤0.80显示出中度敏感性,可能会漏诊约十分之三的FFR阳性病变。首次QFR≤0.87提供了更高的敏感性,并可能有助于避免许多患者进行侵入性(分期)手术。