P3578Determinants of visual-functional mismatches as assessed by coronary angiography and 3-D angiography-based quantitative flow ratio

Abstract

Abstract Background Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (QCA)-based computational index that can estimate fractional flow reserve (FFR) without pharmacologically induced hyperemia or the use of a pressure wire. Purpose We aimed to evaluate the determinants of visual-functional mismatches between conventional two-dimensional QCA and QFR. Methods A total of 504 de novo intermediate-to-severe lesions from 504 patients with stable angina who underwent angiographical and physiological assessments were analyzed. All lesions were divided into four groups based on the significance of visual (QCA-diameter stenosis [DS] >50% and ≤50%) and functional (QFR <0.80 and ≥0.80) stenosis severity. Patient characteristics, angiographic findings, QFR computations, and physiological indices were compared among the four groups. Results Among 504 lesions, 153 lesions (30.4%) showed concordantly negative (DS ≤50% and QFR >0.80) and 170 lesions (33.7%) showed concordantly positive (DS >50% and QFR ≤0.80) visual and functional assessments. Among 181 lesions (35.9%) with discordant results, 75 lesions (14.9%) showed a mismatch (DS >50% and QFR >0.80) and 106 lesions (21.0%) showed a reverse mismatch (DS ≤50% and QFR ≤0.80), respectively. Reverse mismatch was associated with smaller reference diameter (odds ratio [OR] 0.561; P=0.036), greater DS (OR 1.039, P=0.013), lower coronary flow reserve (CFR) (OR 0.571, P<0.001, non-diabetes mellitus (OR 2.141, P=0.013) and lower ejection fraction (OR 0.961, P=0.011). Mismatch was associated with smaller DS (OR 0.914, P<0.001), shorter lesion length (OR 0.894, P=0.001), higher CFR (OR 1,633, P<0.001), and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (OR, 0.968, P=0.001). Lesion location and the index of microcirculatory resistance was not associated with the prevalence of reverse mismatch or mismatch. Conclusions There was a high prevalence of visual-functional mismatches between QCA-DS and QFR, and CFR was an important functional factor of mismatches. Our results suggested the difference between predictors of reported visual-functional mismatches of QCA/FFR and those of QCA/QFR.