Vol 27, No 4 (2020)
Original articles — Interventional cardiology
Published online: 2020-05-20

open access

Page views 2418
Article views/downloads 1647
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of optical flow ratio for functional evaluation of coronary stenosis in a prospective series

Juan Luis Gutiérrez-Chico1, Yundai Chen2, Wei Yu3, Daixin Ding3, Jiayue Huang3, Peng Huang3, Jing Jing2, Miao Chu13, Peng Wu3, Feng Tian2, Bo Xu4, Shengxian Tu3
Pubmed: 32436590
Cardiol J 2020;27(4):350-361.


Background: Evaluating prospectively the feasibility, accuracy and reproducibility of optical flow ratio (OFR), a novel method of computational physiology based on optical coherence tomography (OCT).
Methods and results: Sixty consecutive patients (76 vessels) underwent prospectively OCT, angiography- based quantitative flow ratio (QFR) and fractional flow ratio (FFR). OFR was computed offline in a central core-lab by analysts blinded to FFR. OFR was feasible in 98.7% of the lesions and showed excellent agreement with FFR (ICCa = 0.83, r = 0.83, slope = 0.80, intercept = 0.17, kappa = 0.84). The area under curve to predict an FFR ≤ 0.80 was 0.95, higher than for QFR (0.91, p = 0.115) and for minimal lumen area (0.64, p < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 93%, 92%, 93%, 88%, 96%, 13.8, 0.1, respectively. Median time to obtain OFR was 1.07 (IQR: 0.98–1.16) min, with excellent intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility (0.97 and 0.95, respectively). Pullback speed had negligible impact on OFR, provided the same coronary segment were imaged (ICCa = 0.90, kappa = 0.697).
Conclusions: The prospective computation of OFR is feasible and reproducible in a real-world series,
resulting in excellent agreement with FFR, superior to other image-based methods.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  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.
  2. Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, et al. FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(3): 213–224.
  3. 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.
  4. Toth GG, Toth B, Johnson NP, et al. Revascularization decisions in patients with stable angina and intermediate lesions: results of the international survey on interventional strategy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7(6): 751–759.
  5. Härle T, Zeymer U, Hochadel M, et al. Real-world use of fractional flow reserve in Germany: results of the prospective ALKK coronary angiography and PCI registry. Clin Res Cardiol. 2017; 106(2): 140–150.
  6. Lee HS, Lee JM, Nam CW, et al. Consensus document for invasive coronary physiologic assessment in Asia-Pacific countries. Cardiol J. 2019; 26(3): 215–225.
  7. Gutiérrez-Chico JL, Regar E, Nüesch E, et al. Delayed coverage in malapposed and side-branch struts with respect to well-apposed struts in drug-eluting stents: in vivo assessment with optical coherence tomography. Circulation. 2011; 124(5): 612–623.
  8. Gutiérrez-Chico JL, Wykrzykowska J, Nüesch E, et al. Vascular tissue reaction to acute malapposition in human coronary arteries: sequential assessment with optical coherence tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5(1): 20–29, S1.
  9. Gutiérrez-Chico JL, Alegría-Barrero E, Teijeiro-Mestre R, et al. Optical coherence tomography: from research to practice. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012; 13(5): 370–384.
  10. Ali ZA, Maehara A, Généreux P, et al. ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI Investigators. Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 388(10060): 2618–2628.
  11. Gonzalo N, Escaned J, Alfonso F, et al. Morphometric assessment of coronary stenosis relevance with optical coherence tomography: a comparison with fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59(12): 1080–1089.
  12. Li Y, Gutiérrez-Chico JL, Holm NR, et al. Impact of side branch modeling on computation of endothelial shear stress in coronary artery disease: coronary tree reconstruction by fusion of 3D angiography and OCT. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66(2): 125–135.
  13. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2018; 40(2): 87–165.
  14. Tian F, Yu W, Huang J, et al. First presentation of integration of intravascular optical coherence tomography and computational fractional flow reserve. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019; 35(4): 601–602.
  15. Yu W, Huang J, Jia D, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intracoronary optical coherence tomography-derived fractional flow reserve for assessment of coronary stenosis severity. EuroIntervention. 2019; 15(2): 189–197.
  16. Huang J, Emori H, Ding D, et al. Comparison of diagnostic performance of intracoronary optical coherence tomography-based and angiography-based fractional flow reserve for evaluation of coronary stenosis. EuroIntervention. 2020 [Epub ahead of print].
  17. Tu S, Barbato E, Köszegi Z, et al. Fractional flow reserve calculation from 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography and TIMI frame count: a fast computer model to quantify the functional significance of moderately obstructed coronary arteries. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7(7): 768–777.
  18. Tu S, Westra J, Yang J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fast computational approaches to derive fractional flow reserve from diagnostic coronary angiography: the international multicenter FAVOR pilot study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(19): 2024–2035.
  19. Prati F, Cera M, Ramazzotti V, et al. Safety and feasibility of a new non-occlusive technique for facilitated intracoronary optical coherence tomography (OCT) acquisition in various clinical and anatomical scenarios. EuroIntervention. 2007; 3(3): 365–370.
  20. Gutiérrez-Chico JL, Cortés C, Schincariol M, et al. A formula to calculate the contrast volume required for optimal imaging quality in optical coherence tomography with non-occlusive technique. Cardiol J. 2018; 25(5): 574–581.
  21. Xu B, Tu S, Qiao S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of angiography-based quantitative flow ratio measurements for online assessment of coronary stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70(25): 3077–3087.
  22. Westra J, Andersen BK, Campo G, et al. Diagnostic performance of in-procedure angiography-derived quantitative flow reserve compared to pressure-derived fractional flow reserve: the FAVOR II Europe-Japan study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7(14).
  23. Karanasos A, Tu S, van Ditzhuijzen NS, et al. A novel method to assess coronary artery bifurcations by OCT: cut-plane analysis for side-branch ostial assessment from a main-vessel pullback. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015; 16(2): 177–189.
  24. Finet G, Gilard M, Perrenot B, et al. Fractal geometry of arterial coronary bifurcations: a quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound analysis. EuroIntervention. 2008; 3(4): 490–498.
  25. Liao JJZ. Sample size calculation for an agreement study. Pharm Stat. 2010; 9(2): 125–132.
  26. Gutiérrez-Chico JL, Zhao S, Chatzizisis YS. Vorticity: At the crossroads of coronary biomechanics and physiology. Atherosclerosis. 2018; 273: 115–116.
  27. Gutierrez-Chico JL, Cortes C, Jaguszewski M, et al. A simplified formula to calculate fractional flow reserve in sequential lesions circumventing the measurement of coronary wedge pressure: The APIS-S pilot study. Cardiol J. 2019; 26(4): 310–321.