In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.


This content is currently on FREE ACCESS, enjoy another 27 days of free consultation

 

A comparison between the diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio and non-invasive imaging modalities for diagnosing myocardial ischemia defined by FFR, a PACIFIC-trial interim analysis.

Session Blockbusters from the Young - Multimodality Imaging in coronary artery disease

Speaker Pepijn Adriaan Van Diemen

Congress : ESC Congress 2019

  • Topic : imaging
  • Sub-topic : Imaging: Coronary Artery Disease
  • Session type : Abstract Session
  • FP Number : 1268

Authors : PAA Van Diemen (Amsterdam,NL), RS Driessen (Amsterdam,NL), RA Kooistra (Leiden,NL), WJ Stuijfzand (Amsterdam,NL), PG Raijmakers (Amsterdam,NL), SP Schumacher (Amsterdam,NL), MJ Bom (Amsterdam,NL), H Everaars (Amsterdam,NL), JK Min (New York,US), JA Leipsic (Vancouver,CA), J Knuuti (Turku,FI), SR Underwood (London,GB), AC Van Rossum (Amsterdam,NL), I Danad (Amsterdam,NL), P Knaapen (Amsterdam,NL)

Authors:
PAA Van Diemen1 , RS Driessen1 , RA Kooistra2 , WJ Stuijfzand1 , PG Raijmakers1 , SP Schumacher1 , MJ Bom1 , H Everaars1 , JK Min3 , JA Leipsic4 , J Knuuti5 , SR Underwood6 , AC Van Rossum1 , I Danad1 , P Knaapen1 , 1Amsterdam UMC - Location VUmc - Amsterdam - Netherlands (The) , 2Medis Medical Imaging Systems - Leiden - Netherlands (The) , 3Weill Cornell Medical College, Cardiovascular Imaging - New York - United States of America , 4University of British Columbia, Medicine and Radiology - Vancouver - Canada , 5Turku University Hospital, PET centre - Turku - Finland , 6Royal Brompton Hospital, Nuclear Medicine - London - United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland ,

Citation:

Background: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) uses fast computational algorithms based on 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography and estimation of contrast flow velocity during invasive coronary angiography (ICA) to obtain QFR values equivalent to fractional flow reserve (FFR). 

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of QFR with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), single-photon emission tomography (SPECT), and positron emission tomography (PET) for diagnosing myocardial ischemia defined by FFR.

Method: QFR computation was attempted in 109 patients (286 vessels without a subtotal/total lesion) of the 208 patients included in the PACIFIC-trial. Patients underwent 256-slice CCTA, Tetrofosmin SPECT, and [15O]H2O PET prior to ICA in conjunction with 3 vessel FFR measurements. ICA images were obtained without the use of a dedicated QFR acquistion protocol. QFR was calculated using a fixed empiric hyperemic flow velocity (fQFR) as well as using a patient specific flow velocity based on contrast passage through the coronary (cQFR). All analysis were performed on a per vessel level.

Results: Fixed QFR computation succeeded in 152 (53%) vessels while cQFR analysis was successful in 140 (49%) vessels. A good correlation between FFR and fQFR/cQFR was observed (R=0.774, p<0.001/R=0.790, p<0.001). The diagnostic performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy is presented in table 1. In total, 133 vessels with matched FFR, fQFR, cQFR, CCTA, SPECT, and PET results were available for the comparative C-statistic analysis, figure 1. The diagnostic performance of fQFR and cQFR was comparable (p=0.451) and superior to CCTA (p=0.004/p=0.003), SPECT (p<0.001/p<0.001), and PET (p=0.008/p=0.006), figure 1. CCTA, and PET performed alike (p=0.568) and outperformed SPECT (p=0.023, p=0.002).

Conclusion: Fixed QFR and cQFR correlate well with FFR with a high diagnostic accuracy as result. QFR outperformed CCTA, SPECT, and PET for the diagnosis of myocardial ischemia on a per vessel basis with the important footnote that fQFR and cQFR could only be computed in 53%, and 49% of the vessels.

% (95% Confidence Interval)

fQFR n=152

cQFR n=140

CCTA n=152

SPECT n=150

PET n=149

Sensitivity

76 (59-89)

71 (53-86)

70 (51-84)

30 (16-49)

76 (58-89)

Specificity

94 (88-98)

93 (86-97)

73 (64-81)

96 (90-99)

80 (72-87)

Negative Predictive Value

93 (88-96)

92 (86-95)

90 (84-94)

83 (79-86)

92 (86-96)

Positive Predictive Value

79 (64-89)

74 (59-85)

42 (33-51)

67 (42-84)

52 (42-62)

Accuracy

90 (84-94)

88 (81-93)

72 (65-79)

81 (74-87)

79 (72-85)

This content is currently on FREE ACCESS, enjoy another 27 days of free consultation

 



Based on your interests

Members get more

Join now
  • 1ESC Professional Members – access all resources from ESC Congress and ESC Asia with APSC & AFC
  • 2ESC Association Members (Ivory, Silver, Gold) – access your Association’s congress resources
  • 3Under 40 or in training - with a Combined Membership, access resources from all congresses
Join now

Our sponsors

ESC 365 is supported by Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly Alliance, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Alliance, Novartis Pharma AG and Vifor Pharma in the form of educational grants. The sponsors were not involved in the development of this platform and had no influence on its content.

logo esc

Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease

Who we are