Abstract
Abstract Background QFR and FFRCT are recently developed, less-invasive techniques for functional assessment of coronary artery disease. Objectives We compared the diagnostic performance between fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography (FFRCT) and quantitative flow ratio (QFR) derived from coronary angiography, using FFR as the standard reference. Methods We measured FFRCT, QFR and FFR in 152 patients (233 vessels) with stable coronary artery disease. Results QFR was highly correlated with FFR (r=0.78, p<0.001), while FFRCT was moderately correlated with FFR (r=0.63, p<0.001). Both QFR and FFRCT showed good agreements with FFR, presenting small values of mean difference and root-mean-squared deviation (FFR -QFR: 0.02±0.09 and FFR -FFRCT: 0.03±0.11). The AUC of QFR was significantly greater than that of 3D-QCA-derived %DS (0.93 vs. 0.78; difference: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.20; p<0.001). The AUC of FFRCTwas significantly greater than that of CCTA-derived %DS (0.82 vs. 0.70; difference: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.19; p<0.001). The AUC of QFR was significantly greater than that of FFRCT (0.93 vs. 0.82; difference: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.16; p<0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive valueof 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: 81% to 89%], while that of FFRCT≤0.80 for predicting FFR ≤0.80was 76% [95% confidence interval: 70% to 80%]. Figure 1. Comparison of FFR ≤0.80 predictors Conclusions Both QFR and FFRCTpossessed the ability to accurately evaluate the functional severity of coronary stenosis.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call