Angiographic Lesion Discordance in Women Presenting With Ischemic Heart Disease: Comparison of Visual Assessment, Quantitative Coronary Angiography, and Quantitative Flow Ratio.

BACKGROUND

Although visual assessment of stenosis severity is routinely used to guide coronary revascularization, there are concerns about its accuracy, especially in women, who present a higher variability in coronary anatomy and ischemic heart disease (IHD). The aim of this study was to assess whether quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and quantitative flow ratio (QFR) could provide better discrimination of coronary stenosis severity and functional significance than visual assessment alone in women with IHD.

METHODS

Coronary angiography was performed in a cohort of women with ischemic symptoms and non-invasive stress perfusion imaging. Visual assessment was done by blinded operators in clinical practice, while QCA and QFR were analyzed in an independent core laboratory.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine consecutive patients with 101 lesions were included in the registry, and QFR was successfully measured in 81 lesions (80.2%). Visual assessment provided higher readings of angiographic severity than QCA in 50.5% (n = 51) of lesions. Mean absolute difference between QCA and visual assessment was significantly higher in lesions with >70% diameter stenosis (DS) (25.3 ± 7.3%), compared with both the 40%-55% (9.3 ± 6.8%; P<.001) and the <40% groups (7.0 ± 6.0%; P<.001). QFR was >0.80 in 33.3% of lesions with visually defined >70% DS, while all lesions with QCA-defined >70% DS had QFR ≤0.80.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventional cardiologists' visual assessment results in a higher degree of coronary stenosis than QCA. Among women with ischemic symptoms and non-invasive stress perfusion imaging, additional lesion assessment by QCA and QFR may improve operators' ability to determine which patients and lesions will benefit from coronary revascularization.