Optimal diagnostic approach for using CT-derived quantitative flow ratio in patients with stenosis on coronary computed tomography angiography

Background: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived quantitative flow ratio (CT-QFR) is an on-site non-invasive technique estimating invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). This study assesses the diagnostic performance of using most distal CT-QFR versus lesion-specific CT-QFR approach for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).Methods: Prospectively enrolled de novo chest pain patients (n ​= ​445) with ≥50 ​% visual diameter stenosis on CCTA were referred for invasive evaluation. On-site CT-QFR was analyzed post-hoc blinded to angiographic data and obtained as both most distal (MD-QFR) and lesion-specific CT-QFR (LS-QFR). Abnormal CT-QFR was defined as ≤0.80. Hemodynamically obstructive CAD was defined as invasive FFR ≤0.80 or ≥70 ​% diameter stenosis by 3D-quantitative coronary angiography.Results: In total 404/445 patients had paired CT-QFR and invasive analyses of whom 149/404 (37 ​%) had hemodynamically obstructive CAD. MD-QFR and LS-QFR classified 188 (47 ​%) and 165 (41 ​%) patients as abnormal, respectively. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for MD-QFR was 0.83 vs. 0.85 for LS-QFR, p ​= ​0.01. Sensitivities for MD-QFR and LS-QFR were 80 ​% (95%CI: 73-86) vs. 77 ​% (95%CI: 69-83), p ​= ​0.03, respectively, and specificities were 73 ​% (95%CI: 67-78) vs. 80 ​% (95%CI: 75-85), p ​< ​0.01, respectively. Positive predictive values for MD-QFR and LS-QFR were 63 ​% vs. 69 ​%, p ​< ​0.01, respectively, and negative predictive values for MD-QFR and LS-QFR were 86 ​% vs. 85 ​%, p ​= ​0.39, respectively).Conclusion: Using a lesion-specific CT-QFR approach has superior discrimination of hemodynamically obstructive CAD compared to a most distal CT-QFR approach. CT-QFR identified most cases of hemodynamically obstructive CAD while a normal CT-QFR excluded hemodynamically obstructive CAD in the majority of patients

Anatomical classification of chronic total occlusions in coronary bifurcations

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of chronic total occlusions (CTO) in coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL) is undergoing substantial technical progress and standardization, paralleling the evolution of dedicated devices, tools, and techniques. A standard consensus to classify CTO-CBL might be instrumental to homogenize data collection and description of procedures for scientific and educational purposes. The Medina-CTO classification replicates the classical three digits in Medina classification for bifurcations, representing the proximal main vessel, distal main vessel, and side branch, respectively. Each digit can take a value of 1 if it concerns atherosclerosis and is anatomically stenosed, or 0 if it is not. In addition, the occluded segment(s) of the bifurcation are noted by a subscript, which describes key interventional features of the cap: t (tapered), b (blunt), or a (ambiguous). This approach results in 56 basic categories that can be grouped by means of different elements, depending on the specific needs of each study. Medina-CTO classification, consisting of adding a subscript describing the basic cap characteristics to the totally occluded segment(s) of the standard Medina triplet, might be a useful methodological tool to standardize percutaneous intervention of bifurcational CTO lesions, with interesting scientific and educational applications

Prognostic value of microvascular resistance and its association to fractional flow reserve:a DEFINE-FLOW substudy

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of hyperemic microvascular resistance (HMR) and its relationship with hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR) index and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: This is a substudy of the DEFINE-FLOW cohort (NCT02328820), which evaluated the prognosis of lesions (n=456) after combined FFR and coronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment in a prospective, non-blinded, non-randomised, multicentre study in 12 centres in Europe and Japan. Participants (n=430) were evaluated by wire-based measurement of coronary pressure, flow and vascular resistance (ComboWire XT, Phillips Volcano, San Diego, California, USA). RESULTS: Mean FFR and CFR were 0.82±0.10 and 2.2±0.6, respectively. When divided according to FFR and CFR thresholds (above and below 0.80 and 2.0, respectively), HMR was highest in lesions with FFR>0.80 and CFR<2.0 (n=99) compared with lesions with FFR≤0.80 and CFR≥2.0 (n=68) (2.92±1.2 vs 1.91±0.64 mm Hg/cm/s, p<0.001). The FFR value was proportional to the ratio between HMR and the HMR+HSR (total resistance), 95% limits of agreement (−0.032; 0.019), bias (−0.003±0.02) and correlation (r(2)=0.98, p<0.0001). Cox regression model using HMR as continuous parameter for target vessel failure showed an HR of 1.51, 95% CI (0.9 to 2.4), p=0.10. CONCLUSIONS: Increased HMR was not associated with a higher rate of adverse clinical events, in this population of mainly stable patients. FFR can be equally well expressed as HMR/HMR+HSR, thereby providing an alternative conceptual formulation linking epicardial severity with microvascular resistance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02328820

Characterization of quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve discordance using doppler flow and clinical follow-up

The physiological mechanisms of quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve disagreement are not fully understood. We aimed to characterize the coronary flow and resistance profile of intermediate stenosed epicardial coronary arteries with concordant and discordant FFR and QFR. Post-hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLOW study. Anatomical and Doppler-derived physiological parameters were compared for lesions with FFR+QFR− (n = 18) vs. FFR+QFR+ (n = 43) and for FFR−QFR+ (n = 34) vs. FFR−QFR− (n = 139). The association of QFR results with the two-year rate of target vessel failure was assessed in the proportion of vessels (n = 195) that did not undergo revascularization. Coronary flow reserve was higher [2.3 (IQR: 2.1–2.7) vs. 1.9 (IQR: 1.5–2.4)], hyperemic microvascular resistance lower [1.72 (IQR: 1.48–2.31) vs. 2.26 (IQR: 1.79–2.87)] and anatomical lesion severity less severe [% diameter stenosis 45.5 (IQR: 41.5–52.5) vs. 58.5 (IQR: 53.1–64.0)] for FFR+QFR− lesions compared with FFR+QFR+ lesions. In comparison of FFR−QFR+ vs. FFR-QFR- lesions, lesion severity was more severe [% diameter stenosis 55.2 (IQR: 51.7–61.3) vs. 43.4 (IQR: 35.0–50.6)] while coronary flow reserve [2.2 (IQR: 1.9–2.9) vs. 2.2 (IQR: 1.9–2.6)] and hyperemic microvascular resistance [2.34 (IQR: 1.85–2.81) vs. 2.57 (IQR: 2.01–3.22)] did not differ. The agreement and diagnostic performance of FFR using hyperemic stenosis resistance (> 0.80) as reference standard was higher compared with QFR and coronary flow reserve. Disagreement between FFR and QFR is partly explained by physiological and anatomical factors. Clinical Trials Registration https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01813435. Graphical abstract: Changes in central physiological and anatomical parameters according to FFR and QFR match/mismatch quadrants