Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Apr 1;97(5):807-814.
doi: 10.1002/ccd.28857. Epub 2020 Mar 20.

Quantitative flow ratio-Meta-analysis and systematic review

Carlos Cortés  1   2 , Manuel Carrasco-Moraleja  3 , Alvaro Aparisi  1 , Tania Rodriguez-Gabella  1 , Alberto Campo  1 , Hipolito Gutiérrez  1 , Fabián Julca  1 , Itziar Gómez  3 , Jose Alberto San Román  3 , Ignacio J Amat-Santos  3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Quantitative flow ratio-Meta-analysis and systematic review

Carlos Cortés et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. .

Abstract

Introduction: Despite of the wide evidence of use fractional flow reserve (FFR), isolated angiography evaluation is still the main tool to indicate percutaneous coronary intervention. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a new functional index to assess functional significance. Recently, few studies have showed the capacity of QFR to predict significance stenosis. The aim of this research has been to describe the evidence of QFR in this clinical setting, to analyze the global diagnosis accuracy of QFR versus FFR and to compare the difference in feasibility between retrospective and prospective analysis.

Methods and results: Systematic review of literature was performed. Eligible studies for the meta-analysis were considered those directly evaluating de QFR versus FFR. Pooled values of diagnosis test and summary receiver operator curve were calculated. Main causes of not-perform QFR analysis according to study design were also evaluated. Sixteen studies were included. Good correlation and agreement were showed. Global sensibility, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 0.84, 0.89, 0.80, and 0.92, respectively. Then, 18% of evaluated vessels could not be analyzed. Significant differences were found in the percentage of discarded vessels and the cause of nonperformed analysis between retrospective or prospective analysis.

Conclusions: Excellent correlation and agreement between QFR and FFR was demonstrated. QFR assessment could be improved by its prospective analysis with a dedicated protocol.

Keywords: fractional flow reserve; imaging, angiographic/fluoroscopic; meta-analysis; new devices (in general); quantitative coronary angiography.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(26):1703-1708.
    1. Bech GJ, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation. 2001;103(24):2928-2934.
    1. Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(3):213-224.
    1. De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(11):991-1001.
    1. Lindstaedt M, Spiecker M, Perings C, et al. How good are experienced interventional cardiologists at predicting the functional significance of intermediate or equivocal left main coronary artery stenoses? Int J Cardiol. 2007;120(2):254-261.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources