Quantitative flow ratio—Meta‐analysis and systematic review
Introduction Despite of the wide evidence of use fractional flow reserve (FFR), isolated angiography evaluation is still the main tool to indicate percutaneous coronary intervention. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a new functional index to assess functional significance. Recently, few studies have...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2021-04, Vol.97 (5), p.807-814 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 814 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 807 |
| container_title | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions |
| container_volume | 97 |
| creator | Cortés, Carlos Carrasco‐Moraleja, Manuel Aparisi, Alvaro Rodriguez‐Gabella, Tania Campo, Alberto Gutiérrez, Hipolito Julca, Fabián Gómez, Itziar San Román, Jose Alberto Amat‐Santos, Ignacio J. |
| description | Introduction
Despite of the wide evidence of use fractional flow reserve (FFR), isolated angiography evaluation is still the main tool to indicate percutaneous coronary intervention. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a new functional index to assess functional significance. Recently, few studies have showed the capacity of QFR to predict significance stenosis. The aim of this research has been to describe the evidence of QFR in this clinical setting, to analyze the global diagnosis accuracy of QFR versus FFR and to compare the difference in feasibility between retrospective and prospective analysis.
Methods and results
Systematic review of literature was performed. Eligible studies for the meta‐analysis were considered those directly evaluating de QFR versus FFR. Pooled values of diagnosis test and summary receiver operator curve were calculated. Main causes of not‐perform QFR analysis according to study design were also evaluated.
Sixteen studies were included. Good correlation and agreement were showed. Global sensibility, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 0.84, 0.89, 0.80, and 0.92, respectively. Then, 18% of evaluated vessels could not be analyzed. Significant differences were found in the percentage of discarded vessels and the cause of nonperformed analysis between retrospective or prospective analysis.
Conclusions
Excellent correlation and agreement between QFR and FFR was demonstrated. QFR assessment could be improved by its prospective analysis with a dedicated protocol. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ccd.28857 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2381628568</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2381628568</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4197-d43f442d1881701e0d4797cd54f8d6bf91d08ac7544e8960df6f3abd5cf250af3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10MtKw0AYBeBBFFurC19AAm50kXZmMpnLSiReoSKCgrswnQuk5FIzSUt2fQQXPmGfxNFUF4Kr_yw-DvwHgGMExwhCPFFKjzHnMdsBQxRjHDJMX3e3GQlCB-DAuTmEUFAs9sEgwkhQEeEhuHhqZdlkjWyypQlsXq2C2udqs_54MI3crN9lKfPOZS6QpQ5c5xpTeKCC2iwzszoEe1bmzhxt7wi83Fw_J3fh9PH2PrmchoogwUJNIksI1ohzxCAyUBMmmNIxsVzTmRVIQy4ViwkxXFCoLbWRnOlYWRxDaaMROOt7F3X11hrXpEXmlMlzWZqqdSmOOKKYx5R7evqHzqu29l94FSOMGYyY8Oq8V6qunKuNTRd1Vsi6SxFMv1ZN_arp96renmwb21lh9K_8mdGDSQ9WWW66_5vSJLnqKz8BBLOCHA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2512270379</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quantitative flow ratio—Meta‐analysis and systematic review</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>Cortés, Carlos ; Carrasco‐Moraleja, Manuel ; Aparisi, Alvaro ; Rodriguez‐Gabella, Tania ; Campo, Alberto ; Gutiérrez, Hipolito ; Julca, Fabián ; Gómez, Itziar ; San Román, Jose Alberto ; Amat‐Santos, Ignacio J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cortés, Carlos ; Carrasco‐Moraleja, Manuel ; Aparisi, Alvaro ; Rodriguez‐Gabella, Tania ; Campo, Alberto ; Gutiérrez, Hipolito ; Julca, Fabián ; Gómez, Itziar ; San Román, Jose Alberto ; Amat‐Santos, Ignacio J.</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
Despite of the wide evidence of use fractional flow reserve (FFR), isolated angiography evaluation is still the main tool to indicate percutaneous coronary intervention. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a new functional index to assess functional significance. Recently, few studies have showed the capacity of QFR to predict significance stenosis. The aim of this research has been to describe the evidence of QFR in this clinical setting, to analyze the global diagnosis accuracy of QFR versus FFR and to compare the difference in feasibility between retrospective and prospective analysis.
Methods and results
Systematic review of literature was performed. Eligible studies for the meta‐analysis were considered those directly evaluating de QFR versus FFR. Pooled values of diagnosis test and summary receiver operator curve were calculated. Main causes of not‐perform QFR analysis according to study design were also evaluated.
Sixteen studies were included. Good correlation and agreement were showed. Global sensibility, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 0.84, 0.89, 0.80, and 0.92, respectively. Then, 18% of evaluated vessels could not be analyzed. Significant differences were found in the percentage of discarded vessels and the cause of nonperformed analysis between retrospective or prospective analysis.
Conclusions
Excellent correlation and agreement between QFR and FFR was demonstrated. QFR assessment could be improved by its prospective analysis with a dedicated protocol.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1522-1946</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-726X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28857</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32196932</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Angiography ; Diagnosis ; fractional flow reserve ; imaging, angiographic/fluoroscopic ; Meta-analysis ; new devices (in general) ; quantitative coronary angiography ; Stenosis ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions, 2021-04, Vol.97 (5), p.807-814</ispartof><rights>2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4197-d43f442d1881701e0d4797cd54f8d6bf91d08ac7544e8960df6f3abd5cf250af3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4197-d43f442d1881701e0d4797cd54f8d6bf91d08ac7544e8960df6f3abd5cf250af3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2311-4129 ; 0000-0002-9332-4236</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fccd.28857$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fccd.28857$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32196932$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cortés, Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrasco‐Moraleja, Manuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aparisi, Alvaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez‐Gabella, Tania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campo, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutiérrez, Hipolito</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Julca, Fabián</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez, Itziar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>San Román, Jose Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amat‐Santos, Ignacio J.</creatorcontrib><title>Quantitative flow ratio—Meta‐analysis and systematic review</title><title>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</title><addtitle>Catheter Cardiovasc Interv</addtitle><description>Introduction
Despite of the wide evidence of use fractional flow reserve (FFR), isolated angiography evaluation is still the main tool to indicate percutaneous coronary intervention. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a new functional index to assess functional significance. Recently, few studies have showed the capacity of QFR to predict significance stenosis. The aim of this research has been to describe the evidence of QFR in this clinical setting, to analyze the global diagnosis accuracy of QFR versus FFR and to compare the difference in feasibility between retrospective and prospective analysis.
Methods and results
Systematic review of literature was performed. Eligible studies for the meta‐analysis were considered those directly evaluating de QFR versus FFR. Pooled values of diagnosis test and summary receiver operator curve were calculated. Main causes of not‐perform QFR analysis according to study design were also evaluated.
Sixteen studies were included. Good correlation and agreement were showed. Global sensibility, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 0.84, 0.89, 0.80, and 0.92, respectively. Then, 18% of evaluated vessels could not be analyzed. Significant differences were found in the percentage of discarded vessels and the cause of nonperformed analysis between retrospective or prospective analysis.
Conclusions
Excellent correlation and agreement between QFR and FFR was demonstrated. QFR assessment could be improved by its prospective analysis with a dedicated protocol.</description><subject>Angiography</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>fractional flow reserve</subject><subject>imaging, angiographic/fluoroscopic</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>new devices (in general)</subject><subject>quantitative coronary angiography</subject><subject>Stenosis</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>1522-1946</issn><issn>1522-726X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10MtKw0AYBeBBFFurC19AAm50kXZmMpnLSiReoSKCgrswnQuk5FIzSUt2fQQXPmGfxNFUF4Kr_yw-DvwHgGMExwhCPFFKjzHnMdsBQxRjHDJMX3e3GQlCB-DAuTmEUFAs9sEgwkhQEeEhuHhqZdlkjWyypQlsXq2C2udqs_54MI3crN9lKfPOZS6QpQ5c5xpTeKCC2iwzszoEe1bmzhxt7wi83Fw_J3fh9PH2PrmchoogwUJNIksI1ohzxCAyUBMmmNIxsVzTmRVIQy4ViwkxXFCoLbWRnOlYWRxDaaMROOt7F3X11hrXpEXmlMlzWZqqdSmOOKKYx5R7evqHzqu29l94FSOMGYyY8Oq8V6qunKuNTRd1Vsi6SxFMv1ZN_arp96renmwb21lh9K_8mdGDSQ9WWW66_5vSJLnqKz8BBLOCHA</recordid><startdate>20210401</startdate><enddate>20210401</enddate><creator>Cortés, Carlos</creator><creator>Carrasco‐Moraleja, Manuel</creator><creator>Aparisi, Alvaro</creator><creator>Rodriguez‐Gabella, Tania</creator><creator>Campo, Alberto</creator><creator>Gutiérrez, Hipolito</creator><creator>Julca, Fabián</creator><creator>Gómez, Itziar</creator><creator>San Román, Jose Alberto</creator><creator>Amat‐Santos, Ignacio J.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2311-4129</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9332-4236</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210401</creationdate><title>Quantitative flow ratio—Meta‐analysis and systematic review</title><author>Cortés, Carlos ; Carrasco‐Moraleja, Manuel ; Aparisi, Alvaro ; Rodriguez‐Gabella, Tania ; Campo, Alberto ; Gutiérrez, Hipolito ; Julca, Fabián ; Gómez, Itziar ; San Román, Jose Alberto ; Amat‐Santos, Ignacio J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4197-d43f442d1881701e0d4797cd54f8d6bf91d08ac7544e8960df6f3abd5cf250af3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Angiography</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>fractional flow reserve</topic><topic>imaging, angiographic/fluoroscopic</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>new devices (in general)</topic><topic>quantitative coronary angiography</topic><topic>Stenosis</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cortés, Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrasco‐Moraleja, Manuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aparisi, Alvaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez‐Gabella, Tania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campo, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutiérrez, Hipolito</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Julca, Fabián</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez, Itziar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>San Román, Jose Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amat‐Santos, Ignacio J.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cortés, Carlos</au><au>Carrasco‐Moraleja, Manuel</au><au>Aparisi, Alvaro</au><au>Rodriguez‐Gabella, Tania</au><au>Campo, Alberto</au><au>Gutiérrez, Hipolito</au><au>Julca, Fabián</au><au>Gómez, Itziar</au><au>San Román, Jose Alberto</au><au>Amat‐Santos, Ignacio J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quantitative flow ratio—Meta‐analysis and systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</jtitle><addtitle>Catheter Cardiovasc Interv</addtitle><date>2021-04-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>97</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>807</spage><epage>814</epage><pages>807-814</pages><issn>1522-1946</issn><eissn>1522-726X</eissn><abstract>Introduction
Despite of the wide evidence of use fractional flow reserve (FFR), isolated angiography evaluation is still the main tool to indicate percutaneous coronary intervention. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a new functional index to assess functional significance. Recently, few studies have showed the capacity of QFR to predict significance stenosis. The aim of this research has been to describe the evidence of QFR in this clinical setting, to analyze the global diagnosis accuracy of QFR versus FFR and to compare the difference in feasibility between retrospective and prospective analysis.
Methods and results
Systematic review of literature was performed. Eligible studies for the meta‐analysis were considered those directly evaluating de QFR versus FFR. Pooled values of diagnosis test and summary receiver operator curve were calculated. Main causes of not‐perform QFR analysis according to study design were also evaluated.
Sixteen studies were included. Good correlation and agreement were showed. Global sensibility, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 0.84, 0.89, 0.80, and 0.92, respectively. Then, 18% of evaluated vessels could not be analyzed. Significant differences were found in the percentage of discarded vessels and the cause of nonperformed analysis between retrospective or prospective analysis.
Conclusions
Excellent correlation and agreement between QFR and FFR was demonstrated. QFR assessment could be improved by its prospective analysis with a dedicated protocol.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>32196932</pmid><doi>10.1002/ccd.28857</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2311-4129</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9332-4236</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1522-1946 |
| ispartof | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions, 2021-04, Vol.97 (5), p.807-814 |
| issn | 1522-1946 1522-726X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2381628568 |
| source | Wiley Journals |
| subjects | Angiography Diagnosis fractional flow reserve imaging, angiographic/fluoroscopic Meta-analysis new devices (in general) quantitative coronary angiography Stenosis Systematic review |
| title | Quantitative flow ratio—Meta‐analysis and systematic review |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T10%3A19%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quantitative%20flow%20ratio%E2%80%94Meta%E2%80%90analysis%20and%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Catheterization%20and%20cardiovascular%20interventions&rft.au=Cort%C3%A9s,%20Carlos&rft.date=2021-04-01&rft.volume=97&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=807&rft.epage=814&rft.pages=807-814&rft.issn=1522-1946&rft.eissn=1522-726X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ccd.28857&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2381628568%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2512270379&rft_id=info:pmid/32196932&rfr_iscdi=true |