Association of Quantitative Flow Ratio with Lesion Severity and Its Ability to Discriminate Myocardial Ischemia

Overview

Journal Korean Circ J

Date 2021 Feb 1

PMID 33525067

Citations 9

Authors

Neng Dai

Doyeon Hwang

Joo Myung Lee

Jinlong Zhang

Yaliang Tong

Ki Hyun Jeon

Jin Chul Paeng

Gi Jeong Cheon

Bon Kwon Koo

Junbo Ge

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Objectives: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based technique for functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis. This study investigated the response of QFR to different degree of stenosis severity and its ability to predict the positron emission tomography (PET)-defined myocardial ischemia.

Methods: From 109 patients with 185 vessels who underwent both 13N-ammonia PET and invasive physiological measurement, we compared QFR, fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for the responses to the different degree of anatomical (percent diameter stenosis [%DS]) and hemodynamic (relative flow reserve [RFR], coronary flow reserve, hyperemic stenosis resistance, and stress myocardial flow) stenosis severity and diagnostic performance against PET-derived parameters.

Results: QFR, FFR, and iFR showed similar responses to both anatomic and hemodynamic stenosis severity. Regarding RFR, the diagnostic accuracy of QFR was lower than FFR (76.2% vs. 83.2%, p=0.021) and iFR (76.2% vs. 84.3%, p=0.031). For coronary flow capacity (CFC), QFR showed a lower accuracy than iFR (74.1% vs. 82%, p=0.031) and lower discriminant function than FFR (area under curve: 0.74 vs. 0.79, p=0.044). Discordance between QFR and FFR or iFR was shown in 14.6% of cases and was driven by the difference in %DS and heterogeneous distribution of PET-derived RFR and stress myocardial blood flow.

Conclusions: QFR demonstrated a similar response to different anatomic and hemodynamic stenosis severity as FFR or iFR. However, its diagnostic performance was inferior to FFR and iFR when PET-derived RFR and CFC were used as a reference.

Citing Articles

Practical Application of Coronary Physiologic Assessment: Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Document: Part 1.

Koo B, Lee J, Hwang D, Park S, Shiono Y, Yonetsu T JACC Asia. 2023; 3(5):689-706.

PMID: 38095005 PMC: 10715899. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacasi.2023.07.003.

Practical Approach for Angina and Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries: A State-of-the-Art Review.

Boerhout C, Beijk M, Damman P, Piek J, van de Hoef T Korean Circ J. 2023; 53(8):519-534.

PMID: 37525496 PMC: 10435829. DOI: 10.4070/kcj.2023.0109.

Sex Differences in Murray Law-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio Among Patients With Intermediate Coronary Lesions.

Zuo W, Sun R, Ji Z, Zuo P, Zhang X, Huang R J Am Heart Assoc. 2023; 12(13):e029330.

PMID: 37345824 PMC: 10356092. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.123.029330.

Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease by Myocardial Flow Reserve Versus Pressure-wire Based Assessment: A Systematic Review.

Manabe O, Aikawa T, Naya M, Miura S, Oyama-Manabe N Ann Nucl Cardiol. 2023; 7(1):57-62.

PMID: 36994131 PMC: 10040938. DOI: 10.17996/anc.21-00144.

Comparison of 2D-QCA, 3D-QCA and coronary angiography derived FFR in predicting myocardial ischemia assessed by CZT-SPECT MPI.

Tang X, Dai N, Zhang B, Cai H, Huo Y, Yang M J Nucl Cardiol. 2023; 30(5):1973-1982.

PMID: 36929293 DOI: 10.1007/s12350-023-03240-4.

References

Lee J, Hwang D, Park J, Zhang J, Tong Y, Kim C . Exploring Coronary Circulatory Response to Stenosis and Its Association With Invasive Physiologic Indexes Using Absolute Myocardial Blood Flow and Coronary Pressure. Circulation. 2017; 136(19):1798-1808. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029911. View

Hwang D, Choi K, Lee J, Mejia-Renteria H, Kim J, Park J . Diagnostic Agreement of Quantitative Flow Ratio With Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019; 8(8):e011605. PMC: 6507214. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.118.011605. View

Johnson N, Koo B . Coronary Psychology: Do You Believe?. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11(15):1492-1494. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.05.021. View

Johnson N, Kirkeeide R, Gould K . Is discordance of coronary flow reserve and fractional flow reserve due to methodology or clinically relevant coronary pathophysiology?. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012; 5(2):193-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.09.020. View

Johnson N, Kirkeeide R, Gould K . Coronary anatomy to predict physiology: fundamental limits. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013; 6(5):817-32. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.113.000373. View

Tahari A, Lee A, Rajaram M, Fukushima K, Lodge M, Lee B . Absolute myocardial flow quantification with (82)Rb PET/CT: comparison of different software packages and methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013; 41(1):126-35. PMC: 3849220. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-013-2537-1. View

Westra J, Tu S, Winther S, Nissen L, Vestergaard M, Andersen B . Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stenosis by Quantitative Flow Ratio During Invasive Coronary Angiography: The WIFI II Study (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II). Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018; 11(3):e007107. PMC: 5895131. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.007107. View

Gould K, Johnson N, Bateman T, Beanlands R, Bengel F, Bober R . Anatomic versus physiologic assessment of coronary artery disease. Role of coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and positron emission tomography imaging in revascularization decision-making. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(18):1639-1653. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.076. View

Toth G, Hamilos M, Pyxaras S, Mangiacapra F, Nelis O, De Vroey F . Evolving concepts of angiogram: fractional flow reserve discordances in 4000 coronary stenoses. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(40):2831-8. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu094. View

10.

Tu S, Westra J, Yang J, von Birgelen C, Ferrara A, Pellicano M . Diagnostic Accuracy of Fast Computational Approaches to Derive Fractional Flow Reserve From Diagnostic Coronary Angiography: The International Multicenter FAVOR Pilot Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(19):2024-2035. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.07.013. View

11.

Chu M, Dai N, Yang J, Westra J, Tu S . A systematic review of imaging anatomy in predicting functional significance of coronary stenoses determined by fractional flow reserve. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017; 33(7):975-990. DOI: 10.1007/s10554-017-1085-3. View

12.

Emori H, Kubo T, Kameyama T, Ino Y, Matsuo Y, Kitabata H . Quantitative flow ratio and instantaneous wave-free ratio for the assessment of the functional severity of intermediate coronary artery stenosis. Coron Artery Dis. 2018; 29(8):611-617. DOI: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000650. View

13.

Sen S, Escaned J, Malik I, Mikhail G, Foale R, Mila R . Development and validation of a new adenosine-independent index of stenosis severity from coronary wave-intensity analysis: results of the ADVISE (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 59(15):1392-402. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.003. View

14.

Johnson N, Gould K . Integrating noninvasive absolute flow, coronary flow reserve, and ischemic thresholds into a comprehensive map of physiological severity. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012; 5(4):430-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.12.014. View

15.

Westra J, Andersen B, Campo G, Matsuo H, Koltowski L, Eftekhari A . Diagnostic Performance of In-Procedure Angiography-Derived Quantitative Flow Reserve Compared to Pressure-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: The FAVOR II Europe-Japan Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7(14). PMC: 6064860. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009603. View

16.

Toth G, Toth B, Johnson N, De Vroey F, Di Serafino L, Pyxaras S . Revascularization decisions in patients with stable angina and intermediate lesions: results of the international survey on interventional strategy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7(6):751-9. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001608. View

17.

Hajjiri M, Leavitt M, Zheng H, Spooner A, Fischman A, Gewirtz H . Comparison of positron emission tomography measurement of adenosine-stimulated absolute myocardial blood flow versus relative myocardial tracer content for physiological assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity and location. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009; 2(6):751-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.04.004. View

18.

Lee H, Lee J, Nam C, Shin E, Doh J, Dai N . Consensus document for invasive coronary physiologic assessment in Asia-Pacific countries. Cardiol J. 2019; 26(3):215-225. PMC: 8086662. DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2019.0054. View

19.

Collet C, Onuma Y, Sonck J, Asano T, Vandeloo B, Kornowski R . Diagnostic performance of angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2018; 39(35):3314-3321. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy445. View

20.

Stuijfzand W, Uusitalo V, Kero T, Danad I, Rijnierse M, Saraste A . Relative flow reserve derived from quantitative perfusion imaging may not outperform stress myocardial blood flow for identification of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015; 8(1). DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.114.002400. View