1268A comparison between the diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio and non-invasive imaging modalities for diagnosing myocardial ischemia defined by FFR, a PACIFIC-trial interim analysis

Abstract Background Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) uses fast computational algorithms based on 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography and estimation of contrast flow velocity during invasive coronary angiography (ICA) to obtain QFR values equivalent to fractional flow reserve (FFR). Objectiv...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European heart journal 2019-10, Vol.40 (Supplement_1)
Hauptverfasser: Van Diemen, P A A, Driessen, R S, Kooistra, R A, Stuijfzand, W J, Raijmakers, P G, Schumacher, S P, Bom, M J, Everaars, H, Min, J K, Leipsic, J A, Knuuti, J, Underwood, S R, Van Rossum, A C, Danad, I, Knaapen, P
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) uses fast computational algorithms based on 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography and estimation of contrast flow velocity during invasive coronary angiography (ICA) to obtain QFR values equivalent to fractional flow reserve (FFR). Objective To compare the diagnostic performance of QFR with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), single-photon emission tomography (SPECT), and positron emission tomography (PET) for diagnosing myocardial ischemia defined by FFR. Method QFR computation was attempted in 109 patients (286 vessels without a subtotal/total lesion) of the 208 patients included in the PACIFIC-trial. Patients underwent 256-slice CCTA, Tetrofosmin SPECT, and [15O]H2O PET prior to ICA in conjunction with 3 vessel FFR measurements. ICA images were obtained without the use of a dedicated QFR acquistion protocol. QFR was calculated using a fixed empiric hyperemic flow velocity (fQFR) as well as using a patient specific flow velocity based on contrast passage through the coronary (cQFR). All analysis were performed on a per vessel level. Results Fixed QFR computation succeeded in 152 (53%) vessels while cQFR analysis was successful in 140 (49%) vessels. A good correlation between FFR and fQFR/cQFR was observed (R=0.774, p
ISSN:0195-668X
1522-9645
DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz748.0038