Diagnostic comparison of automatic and manual TIMI frame-counting-generated quantitative flow ratio (QFR) values
- PMID: 37726521
- DOI: 10.1007/s10554-022-02666-0
Diagnostic comparison of automatic and manual TIMI frame-counting-generated quantitative flow ratio (QFR) values
Abstract
Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a computational measurement of FFR (fractional flow reserve), calculated from coronary angiography. Latest QFR software automates TIMI frame counting (TFC), which occurs during the flow step of QFR analyses, making the analysis faster and more reproducible. The objective is to determine the diagnostic performance of QFR values obtained from analyses using automatic TFC compared to those obtained from analyses using manual TFC. This was a single-arm clinical trial that used the prospective analysis of the coronary angiographic image series of 97 patients who underwent evaluation of stable coronary artery disease with FFR/iFR at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC, USA. Automatic and manual TFC QFR values were obtained from the analyses of each of the 97 patients' image series, with manual TFC QFR values as the current gold standard for comparison. The diagnostic performance of automatic TFC QFR values was measured as follows: sensitivity was 0.87 (95% CI 0.66-0.97) and specificity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.9514-1.00), positive predictive value (PPV) was 1.00 (95%CI 1.00-1.00), while the NPV was 0.96 (95% CI 0.96-0.99). Overall accuracy was 96.91% (95% CI 91.23%-99.36%). The agreement as illustrated by the Bland-Altman plot shows a bias of 0.0023 (SD 0.0208) and narrow limits of agreement (LOA): Upper LOA 0.0573 and Lower LOA - 0.0528. The area under curve (AUC) was 0.996. QFR values generated from automatic TFC are comparable to those generated from manual TFC in diagnostic capability. The most recent software update produces values equivalent to those of the previous manual option, and can therefore be used interchangeably.
Keywords: Automatic; Coronary artery disease; QFR; Quantitative flow ratio; TIMI frame-count; Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
Similar articles
-
Accuracy and reproducibility of fast fractional flow reserve computation from invasive coronary angiography.Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Sep;33(9):1305-1312. doi: 10.1007/s10554-017-1190-3. Epub 2017 Jun 22. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017. PMID: 28642995 Free PMC article.
-
Automatic coronary blood flow computation: validation in quantitative flow ratio from coronary angiography.Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Apr;35(4):587-595. doi: 10.1007/s10554-018-1506-y. Epub 2018 Dec 8. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019. PMID: 30535657
-
Comparison of Quantitative Flow Ratio and Invasive Physiology Indices in a Diverse Population at a Tertiary United States Hospital.Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2021 Nov;32:1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2021.06.115. Epub 2021 Jun 25. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2021. PMID: 34215559
-
Non-invasive imaging software to assess the functional significance of coronary stenoses: a systematic review and economic evaluation.Health Technol Assess. 2021 Sep;25(56):1-230. doi: 10.3310/hta25560. Health Technol Assess. 2021. PMID: 34588097
-
Diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio in prospectively enrolled patients: An individual patient-data meta-analysis.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Nov 1;94(5):693-701. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28283. Epub 2019 Apr 9. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019. PMID: 30963676
Cited by
-
Quantitative Flow Ratio-Guided vs. Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of One-Year Clinical Outcomes.J Clin Med. 2025 Jul 15;14(14):5015. doi: 10.3390/jcm14145015. J Clin Med. 2025. PMID: 40725710 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Moscarella E, Gragnano F, Cesaro A, Ielasi A, Diana V, Conte M, Schiavo A, Coletta S, Di Maio D, Fimiani F, Calabrò P (2021) Coronary physiology assessment for the diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease. Cardiol Clin 38:575–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccl.2020.07.003 - DOI
-
- Nogic J, Prosser H, O’Brien J, Thakur U, Soon K, Proimos G, Brown AJ (2020) The assessment of intermediate coronary lesions using intracoronary imaging. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. https://doi.org/10.21037/cdt-20-226 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Zhang D, Lv S, Song X, Yuan F, Xu F, Zhang M, Yan S, Cao X (2015) Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis. Heart 101:455–462. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2014-306578 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, Bates ER, Beckie TM, Bischoff JM, Bittl JA, Cohen MG, DiMaio JM, Don CW, Fremes SE, Gaudino MF, Goldberger ZD, Grant MC, Jaswal JB, Kurlansky PA, Mehran R, Metkus TS Jr, Nnacheta LC, Rao SV, Sellke FW, Sharma G, Yong CM, Zwischenberger BA (2021) ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 79:21–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006 - DOI
-
- Çimen S, Gooya A, Grass M, Frangi AF (2016) Reconstruction of coronary arteries from X-ray angiography: a review. Med Image Anal 32:46–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2016.02.007 - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical