TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stenosis by Quantitative Flow Ratio during Invasive Coronary Angiography
T2 - The WIFI II Study (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II)
AU - Westra, Jelmer
AU - Tu, Shengxian
AU - Winther, Simon
AU - Nissen, Louise
AU - Vestergaard, Mai Britt
AU - Andersen, Birgitte Krogsgaard
AU - Holck, Emil Nielsen
AU - Maule, Camilla Fox
AU - Johansen, Jane Kirk
AU - Andreasen, Lene Nyhus
AU - Simonsen, Jo Krogsgaard
AU - Zhang, Yimin
AU - Kristensen, Steen Dalby
AU - Maeng, Michael
AU - Kaltoft, Anne
AU - Terkelsen, Christian Juhl
AU - Krusell, Lars Romer
AU - Jakobsen, Lars
AU - Reiber, Johan H.C.
AU - Lassen, Jens Flensted
AU - Bøttcher, Morten
AU - Bøtker, Hans Erik
AU - Christiansen, Evald Høj
AU - Holm, Niels Ramsing
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Authors.
PY - 2018/3/1
Y1 - 2018/3/1
N2 - Background - Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel diagnostic modality for functional testing of coronary artery stenosis without the use of pressure wires and induction of hyperemia. QFR is based on computation of standard invasive coronary angiographic imaging. The purpose of WIFI II (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II) was to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of QFR in unselected consecutive patients. Methods and Results - WIFI II was a predefined substudy to the Dan-NICAD study (Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease), referring 362 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease on coronary computed tomographic angiography for diagnostic invasive coronary angiography. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured in all segments with 30% to 90% diameter stenosis. Blinded observers calculated QFR (Medis Medical Imaging bv, The Netherlands) for comparison with FFR. FFR was measured in 292 lesions from 191 patients. Ten (5%) and 9 patients (5%) were excluded because of FFR and angiographic core laboratory criteria, respectively. QFR was successfully computed in 240 out of 255 lesions (94%) with a mean diameter stenosis of 50±12%. Mean difference between FFR and QFR was 0.01±0.08. QFR correctly classified 83% of the lesions using FFR with cutoff at 0.80 as reference standard. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.91) with a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 77%, 86%, 75%, and 87%, respectively. A QFR-FFR hybrid approach based on the present results enables wire-free and adenosine-free procedures in 68% of cases. Conclusions - Functional lesion evaluation by QFR assessment showed good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with FFR. Studies comparing clinical outcome after QFR- and FFR-based diagnostic strategies are required.
AB - Background - Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel diagnostic modality for functional testing of coronary artery stenosis without the use of pressure wires and induction of hyperemia. QFR is based on computation of standard invasive coronary angiographic imaging. The purpose of WIFI II (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II) was to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of QFR in unselected consecutive patients. Methods and Results - WIFI II was a predefined substudy to the Dan-NICAD study (Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease), referring 362 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease on coronary computed tomographic angiography for diagnostic invasive coronary angiography. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured in all segments with 30% to 90% diameter stenosis. Blinded observers calculated QFR (Medis Medical Imaging bv, The Netherlands) for comparison with FFR. FFR was measured in 292 lesions from 191 patients. Ten (5%) and 9 patients (5%) were excluded because of FFR and angiographic core laboratory criteria, respectively. QFR was successfully computed in 240 out of 255 lesions (94%) with a mean diameter stenosis of 50±12%. Mean difference between FFR and QFR was 0.01±0.08. QFR correctly classified 83% of the lesions using FFR with cutoff at 0.80 as reference standard. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.91) with a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 77%, 86%, 75%, and 87%, respectively. A QFR-FFR hybrid approach based on the present results enables wire-free and adenosine-free procedures in 68% of cases. Conclusions - Functional lesion evaluation by QFR assessment showed good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with FFR. Studies comparing clinical outcome after QFR- and FFR-based diagnostic strategies are required.
KW - adenosine
KW - angiography
KW - coronary angiography
KW - coronary artery disease
KW - hyperemia
KW - Severity of Illness Index
KW - Predictive Value of Tests
KW - Reproducibility of Results
KW - Prospective Studies
KW - Computed Tomography Angiography/methods
KW - Coronary Stenosis/diagnosis
KW - Imaging, Three-Dimensional/methods
KW - Humans
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Male
KW - Telemedicine/methods
KW - Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial/physiology
KW - Female
KW - ROC Curve
KW - Coronary Vessels/diagnostic imaging
KW - Coronary Angiography/methods
U2 - 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.007107
DO - 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.007107
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 29555835
AN - SCOPUS:85050460120
VL - 11
JO - Circulation. Cardiovascular Imaging
JF - Circulation. Cardiovascular Imaging
SN - 1941-9651
IS - 3
M1 - 007107
ER -