Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2023
Comparison of quantitative flow ratio with instantaneous wave-free ratio and resting full-cycle ratio during daily routine in the catheterization laboratory.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Stader Jannis, Antoniadis Marios, Ussat Matti, Wachter Rolf, Lavall Daniel, Metze Michael, Neef Martin, Spies Christian, Laufs Ulrich, Lenk Karsten
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel, software-based method to evaluate the physiology of coronary lesions. The aim of this study was to compare QFR with the established invasive measurements of coronary blood flow using instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) in daily cathlab routine.
METHODS: 102 patients with stable coronary artery disease and a coronary stenosis of 40%-90% were simultaneously assessed with QFR and iFR or RFR. QFR-computation was performed by two certified experts using the appropriate software (QAngio XA 3D 3.2).
RESULTS: QFR showed a significant correlation (r = 0.75, p < 0.001) to iFR and RFR. The area under the receiver curve for all measurements was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.98) for QFR compared to iFR or RFR. QFR based assessment required less time with a median of 501 s (IQR 421-659 s) compared to iFR or RFR which required a median of 734 s to obtain the result (IQR 512-967 s; p < 0.001). The median use of contrast medium was similar with 21 mL (IQR 16-30 mL) for the QFR-based and 22 mL (IQR 15-35 mL) for the iFR- or RFR-based diagnostic. QFR diagnostic required less radiation. The median dose area product for QFR was 307cGycm2 (IQR 151-429 cGycm2 ) compared to 599 cGycm2 (IQR 345-1082 cGycm2 ) for iFR or RFR, p < 0.001.
CONCLUSION: QFR measurements of coronary artery blood flow correlate with iFR or RFR measurements and are associated with shorter procedure times and reduced radiation dose.
METHODS: 102 patients with stable coronary artery disease and a coronary stenosis of 40%-90% were simultaneously assessed with QFR and iFR or RFR. QFR-computation was performed by two certified experts using the appropriate software (QAngio XA 3D 3.2).
RESULTS: QFR showed a significant correlation (r = 0.75, p < 0.001) to iFR and RFR. The area under the receiver curve for all measurements was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.98) for QFR compared to iFR or RFR. QFR based assessment required less time with a median of 501 s (IQR 421-659 s) compared to iFR or RFR which required a median of 734 s to obtain the result (IQR 512-967 s; p < 0.001). The median use of contrast medium was similar with 21 mL (IQR 16-30 mL) for the QFR-based and 22 mL (IQR 15-35 mL) for the iFR- or RFR-based diagnostic. QFR diagnostic required less radiation. The median dose area product for QFR was 307cGycm2 (IQR 151-429 cGycm2 ) compared to 599 cGycm2 (IQR 345-1082 cGycm2 ) for iFR or RFR, p < 0.001.
CONCLUSION: QFR measurements of coronary artery blood flow correlate with iFR or RFR measurements and are associated with shorter procedure times and reduced radiation dose.