International journal of cardiology · 2019
Adenosine-Free Indexes vs. Fractional Flow Reserve for Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenoses: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Leone Antonio Maria, Campo Gianluca, Gallo Francesco, Pavasini Rita, Basile Eloisa, D'Amario Domenico, Tebaldi Matteo, Biscaglia Simone, Maietti Elisa, Trani Carlo, Crea Filippo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Adenosine-free indexes (AFIs), including resting Pd/Pa, instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and contrast-FFR (cFFR), have been proposed to circumvent the use of vasodilators, in order to simplify the functional evaluation of coronary stenoses. Aims of this study were to analyze the correlation between AFIs and Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) and to compare their diagnostic accuracy when FFR is used as reference.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in which AFIs were compared to FFR. We produced paired forest plots to show the variation of the sensitivity and specificity estimates. We used a hierarchical summary ROC model (HSROC) to summarize the sensitivity and specificity of AFIs in detecting the concordance with FFR assessment.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, 4424, 4822 and 2021 coronary lesions in 4410, 4472 and 1898 patients, respectively, were evaluated by Pd/Pa, iFR and cFFR, respectively. The overall Pearson's correlations were 0.81 (95%CI 0.78-0.83), 0.80 (95%CI 0.78-0.81) and 0.92 (95%CI 0.90-0.94) for Pd/Pa, iFR and cFFR, respectively. cFFR showed a significantly higher correlation with FFR compared to Pd/Pa and iFR (p < 0.0001). The area under the HSROC estimating the discriminating accuracy of cFFR was 0.95 (95%CI 0.94-0.96) and it was significantly higher compared to Pd/Pa (0.86, 95%CI 0.80-0.93) and iFR (0.89, 95%CI 0.84-0.94) (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: AFIs show a good correlation with the gold standard FFR. Among AFIs, cFFR shows the highest correlation with FFR and the best diagnostic accuracy.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in which AFIs were compared to FFR. We produced paired forest plots to show the variation of the sensitivity and specificity estimates. We used a hierarchical summary ROC model (HSROC) to summarize the sensitivity and specificity of AFIs in detecting the concordance with FFR assessment.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, 4424, 4822 and 2021 coronary lesions in 4410, 4472 and 1898 patients, respectively, were evaluated by Pd/Pa, iFR and cFFR, respectively. The overall Pearson's correlations were 0.81 (95%CI 0.78-0.83), 0.80 (95%CI 0.78-0.81) and 0.92 (95%CI 0.90-0.94) for Pd/Pa, iFR and cFFR, respectively. cFFR showed a significantly higher correlation with FFR compared to Pd/Pa and iFR (p < 0.0001). The area under the HSROC estimating the discriminating accuracy of cFFR was 0.95 (95%CI 0.94-0.96) and it was significantly higher compared to Pd/Pa (0.86, 95%CI 0.80-0.93) and iFR (0.89, 95%CI 0.84-0.94) (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: AFIs show a good correlation with the gold standard FFR. Among AFIs, cFFR shows the highest correlation with FFR and the best diagnostic accuracy.