Reproducibility of quantitative flow ratio: An inter-core laboratory variability study
Abstract
Background: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel approach to derive fractional flow reserve (FFR) from coronary angiography. This study sought to evaluate the reproducibility of QFR when analyzed in independent core laboratories.
Methods: All interrogated vessels in the FAVOR II China Study were separately analyzed using the AngioPlus system (Pulse medical imaging technology, Shanghai) by two independent core laboratories, following the same standard operation procedures. The analysts were blinded to the FFR values and online QFR values. For each interrogated vessel, two identical angiographic image runs were used by two core laboratories for QFR computation. In both core laboratories QFR was successfully obtained in 330 of 332 vessels, in which FFR was available in 328 vessels. Thus, 328 vessels ended in the present statistical analysis.
Results: The mean difference in contrast-flow QFR between the two core laboratories was 0.004 ± 0.03 (p = 0.040), which was slightly smaller than that between the online analysis and the two core laboratories (0.01 ± 0.05, p < 0.001 and 0.01 ± 0.05, p = 0.038). The mean difference of QFR with respect to FFR were comparable between the two core laboratories (0.002 ± 0.06, p = 0.609, and 0.002 ± 0.06, p = 0.531). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that diagnostic accuracies of QFR analyzed by the two core laboratories were both excellent (area under the curve: 0.970 vs. 0.963, p = 0.142), when using FFR as the reference standard.
Conclusions: The present study showed good inter-core laboratory reproducibility of QFR in assessing functionally-significant stenosis. It suggests that QFR analyses can be carried out in different core laboratories if, and only if, highly standardized conditions are maintained.
Keywords: quantitative flow ratiofractional flow reservereproducibilitycore laboratoriescoronary stenosis
References
- Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31: 2501–2555.
- Corcoran D, Hennigan B, Berry C. Fractional flow reserve: a clinical perspective. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017; 33(7): 961–974.
- Tu S, Echavarria-Pinto M, von Birgelen C, et al. Fractional flow reserve and coronary bifurcation anatomy: a novel quantitative model to assess and report the stenosis severity of bifurcation lesions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(4): 564–574.
- Johnson NP, Tóth GG, Lai D, et al. Prognostic value of fractional flow reserve: linking physiologic severity to clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(16): 1641–1654.
- Fearon WF. Percutaneous coronary intervention should be guided by fractional flow reserve measurement. Circulation. 2014; 129(18): 1860–1870.
- De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B, et al. FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(11): 991–1001.
- Kolh P, Windecker S, Alfonso F, et al. European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines, EACTS Clinical Guidelines Committee, Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014; 46(4): 517–592.
- Götberg M, Cook CM, Sen S, et al. The Evolving Future of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70(11): 1379–1402.
- 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.
- Tu S, Westra J, Yang J, et al. FAVOR Pilot Trial Study Group. 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.
- Xu Bo, 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.
- Asano T, Katagiri Y, Collet C, et al. Functional comparison between the BuMA Supreme biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and a durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent using quantitative flow ratio: PIONEER QFR substudy. EuroIntervention. 2018; 14(5): e570–e579.
- Pijls NHJ, Fearon WF, Tonino PAL, et al. FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(3): 213–224.
- Pijls NHJ, Fearon WF, Tonino PAL, et al. FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56(3): 177–184.
- Pijls NHJ, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49(21): 2105–2111.
- Johnson NP, Johnson DT, Kirkeeide RL, et al. Repeatability of Fractional Flow Reserve Despite Variations in Systemic and Coronary Hemodynamics. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(8): 1018–1027.
- Yazaki K, Otsuka M, Kataoka S, et al. Applicability of 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography-derived computed fractional flow reserve for intermediate coronary stenosis. Circ J. 2017; 81(7): 988–992.
- Smit JM, Koning G, van Rosendael AR, et al. Relationship between coronary contrast-flow quantitative flow ratio and myocardial ischemia assessed by SPECT MPI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; 44(11): 1888–1896.
- Westra J, Tu S, Winther S, et al. Evaluation of coronary artery stenosis by quantitative flow ratio during invasive coronary angiography: the WIFI II study (wire-free functional imaging II). Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018; 11(3): e007107.
- Nam CW, Mangiacapra F, Entjes R, et al. FAME Study Investigators. Functional SYNTAX score for risk assessment in multivessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58(12): 1211–1218.
- Spitaleri G, Tebaldi M, Biscaglia S, et al. Quantitative Flow Ratio Identifies Nonculprit Coronary Lesions Requiring Revascularization in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11(2): e006023.
- Emori H, Kubo T, Kameyama T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio for assessing myocardial ischemia in prior myocardial infarction. Circ J. 2018; 82(3): 807–814.
- Mejía-Rentería H, Lee JM, Lauri F, et al. Influence of microcirculatory dysfunction on angiography-based functional assessment of coronary stenoses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11(8): 741–753.
- van Rosendael AR, Koning G, Dimitriu-Leen AC, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of fast fractional flow reserve computation from invasive coronary angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017; 33(9): 1305–1312.
