TY - JOUR
T1 - QFR Versus FFR Derived From Computed Tomography for Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis
AU - Tanigaki, Toru
AU - Emori, Hiroki
AU - Kawase, Yoshiaki
AU - Kubo, Takashi
AU - Omori, Hiroyuki
AU - Shiono, Yasutsugu
AU - Sobue, Yoshihiro
AU - Shimamura, Kunihiro
AU - Hirata, Tetsuo
AU - Matsuo, Yoshiki
AU - Ota, Hideaki
AU - Kitabata, Hironori
AU - Okubo, Munenori
AU - Ino, Yasushi
AU - Matsuo, Hitoshi
AU - Akasaka, Takashi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation
PY - 2019/10/28
Y1 - 2019/10/28
N2 - Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic performance between quantitative flow ratio (QFR) derived from coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography (FFRCT) using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard. Background: QFR and FFRCT are recently developed, less invasive techniques for functional assessment of coronary artery disease. Methods: QFR, FFRCT, and FFR were measured in 152 patients (233 vessels) with stable coronary artery disease. Results: QFR was highly correlated with FFR (r = 0.78; p < 0.001), whereas FFRCT was moderately correlated with FFR (r = 0.63; p < 0.001). Both QFR and FFRCT showed moderately good agreement with FFR, presenting small values of mean difference but large values of root mean squared deviation (FFR-QFR, 0.02 ± 0.09; FFR-FFRCT, 0.03 ± 0.11). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of QFR ≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 were 90%, 82%, 81%, and 90%, respectively. Those of FFRCT ≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 were 82%, 70%, 70%, and 82%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of QFR ≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81% to 89%), whereas that of FFRCT ≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 was 76% (95% CI: 70% to 80%). Conclusions: QFR and FFRCT showed significant correlation with FFR. Mismatches between QFR and FFR and between FFRCT and FFR were frequent.
AB - Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic performance between quantitative flow ratio (QFR) derived from coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography (FFRCT) using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard. Background: QFR and FFRCT are recently developed, less invasive techniques for functional assessment of coronary artery disease. Methods: QFR, FFRCT, and FFR were measured in 152 patients (233 vessels) with stable coronary artery disease. Results: QFR was highly correlated with FFR (r = 0.78; p < 0.001), whereas FFRCT was moderately correlated with FFR (r = 0.63; p < 0.001). Both QFR and FFRCT showed moderately good agreement with FFR, presenting small values of mean difference but large values of root mean squared deviation (FFR-QFR, 0.02 ± 0.09; FFR-FFRCT, 0.03 ± 0.11). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of QFR ≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 were 90%, 82%, 81%, and 90%, respectively. Those of FFRCT ≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 were 82%, 70%, 70%, and 82%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of QFR ≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81% to 89%), whereas that of FFRCT ≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80 was 76% (95% CI: 70% to 80%). Conclusions: QFR and FFRCT showed significant correlation with FFR. Mismatches between QFR and FFR and between FFRCT and FFR were frequent.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073076908&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073076908&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.06.043
DO - 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.06.043
M3 - Article
C2 - 31648766
AN - SCOPUS:85073076908
SN - 1936-8798
VL - 12
SP - 2050
EP - 2059
JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
IS - 20
ER -