Comparison of Quantitative Flow Ratio and Invasive Physiology Indices in a Diverse Population at a Tertiary United States Hospital

Diagnostic Performance of Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR) Values Generated from Automatic TIMI Frame-Counting

“…A recent meta-analysis [11] including sixteen studies directly comparing QFR and FFR reported pooled sensitivity of 0.85 (95%CI 0.82-0.87), speci city of 0.90 (95%CI 0.88-0.91), PPV of 0.80 (95%CI 0.78-0.83), and NPV 0.92 (95%CI 0.91-0.94). Our prior study involving this patient population comparing QFR against FFR and iFR yielded results consistent with those in the literature at the time of its publication [7]. For the present study, we have reported sensitivity of 0.8696, speci city of 1.00, PPV was 1.00, and NPV of 0.9610, indicating reliability of the results of automatic TFC QFR values as a suitable replacement for manual TFC QFR values in the pursuit of less invasive physiologic indices.…”

“…Of the 100 patients who were included in the original study population [7], 3 patients' angiographic image series were excluded from analysis due to analyst recognition of unideal views. Of the 97 patients whose coronary angiographic image series were used for QFR analysis, 69 of the analyzed vessels were the left anterior descending artery (LAD), 16 were the right coronary artery (RCA), 11 were the left circum ex artery (LCX), and 1 was of the ramus artery.…”

“…This was a single-arm clinical trial that used the prospective analysis of retrospective data to compare the automatic and current gold standard manual TFC QFR values of patients who underwent coronary angiography. The population of patients whose coronary angiographic image series were used is identical to that of our prior study, which investigated the diagnostic capability of QFR compared to FFR and iFR [7]. Brie y, the study population included patients who underwent coronary angiography with FFR or iFR from June 24, 2018 to August 7, 2019 at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC, USA.…”