Cargando…
Diagnostic Performance of QFR for the Evaluation of Intermediate Coronary Artery Stenosis Confirmed by Fractional Flow Reserve
INTRODUCTION: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel method enabling efficient computation of FFR from three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D QCA) and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) frame counting. We decided to perform a systematic review and quantitative meta-analy...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436789/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30916126 http://dx.doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2018-0234 |
_version_ | 1783406862698283008 |
---|---|
author | Xing, Zhenhua Pei, Junyu Huang, Jiabing Hu, Xinqun Gao, Shan |
author_facet | Xing, Zhenhua Pei, Junyu Huang, Jiabing Hu, Xinqun Gao, Shan |
author_sort | Xing, Zhenhua |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel method enabling efficient computation of FFR from three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D QCA) and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) frame counting. We decided to perform a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis of the literature to determine the correlation between the diagnosis of functionally significant stenosis obtained by QFR versus FFR and to determine the diagnostic accuracy of QFR for intermediate coronary artery stenosis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies concerning the diagnostic performance of QFR. Our meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model to determine sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The sROC was used to determine diagnostic test accuracy. RESULTS: Nine studies consisting of 1175 vessels in 1047 patients were included in our study. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR-, and DOR for QFR were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91), 6.86 (95% CI,: 5.22-9.02), 0.14 (95% CI: 0.10-0.21), and 53.05 (95% CI: 29.75-94.58), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve for QFR was 0.94. CONCLUSION: QFR is a simple, useful, and noninvasive modality for diagnosis of functional significance of intermediate coronary artery stenosis. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6436789 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64367892019-04-02 Diagnostic Performance of QFR for the Evaluation of Intermediate Coronary Artery Stenosis Confirmed by Fractional Flow Reserve Xing, Zhenhua Pei, Junyu Huang, Jiabing Hu, Xinqun Gao, Shan Braz J Cardiovasc Surg Original Article INTRODUCTION: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel method enabling efficient computation of FFR from three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D QCA) and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) frame counting. We decided to perform a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis of the literature to determine the correlation between the diagnosis of functionally significant stenosis obtained by QFR versus FFR and to determine the diagnostic accuracy of QFR for intermediate coronary artery stenosis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies concerning the diagnostic performance of QFR. Our meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model to determine sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The sROC was used to determine diagnostic test accuracy. RESULTS: Nine studies consisting of 1175 vessels in 1047 patients were included in our study. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR-, and DOR for QFR were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91), 6.86 (95% CI,: 5.22-9.02), 0.14 (95% CI: 0.10-0.21), and 53.05 (95% CI: 29.75-94.58), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve for QFR was 0.94. CONCLUSION: QFR is a simple, useful, and noninvasive modality for diagnosis of functional significance of intermediate coronary artery stenosis. Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6436789/ /pubmed/30916126 http://dx.doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2018-0234 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Xing, Zhenhua Pei, Junyu Huang, Jiabing Hu, Xinqun Gao, Shan Diagnostic Performance of QFR for the Evaluation of Intermediate Coronary Artery Stenosis Confirmed by Fractional Flow Reserve |
title | Diagnostic Performance of QFR for the Evaluation of Intermediate
Coronary Artery Stenosis Confirmed by Fractional Flow Reserve |
title_full | Diagnostic Performance of QFR for the Evaluation of Intermediate
Coronary Artery Stenosis Confirmed by Fractional Flow Reserve |
title_fullStr | Diagnostic Performance of QFR for the Evaluation of Intermediate
Coronary Artery Stenosis Confirmed by Fractional Flow Reserve |
title_full_unstemmed | Diagnostic Performance of QFR for the Evaluation of Intermediate
Coronary Artery Stenosis Confirmed by Fractional Flow Reserve |
title_short | Diagnostic Performance of QFR for the Evaluation of Intermediate
Coronary Artery Stenosis Confirmed by Fractional Flow Reserve |
title_sort | diagnostic performance of qfr for the evaluation of intermediate
coronary artery stenosis confirmed by fractional flow reserve |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6436789/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30916126 http://dx.doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2018-0234 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT xingzhenhua diagnosticperformanceofqfrfortheevaluationofintermediatecoronaryarterystenosisconfirmedbyfractionalflowreserve AT peijunyu diagnosticperformanceofqfrfortheevaluationofintermediatecoronaryarterystenosisconfirmedbyfractionalflowreserve AT huangjiabing diagnosticperformanceofqfrfortheevaluationofintermediatecoronaryarterystenosisconfirmedbyfractionalflowreserve AT huxinqun diagnosticperformanceofqfrfortheevaluationofintermediatecoronaryarterystenosisconfirmedbyfractionalflowreserve AT gaoshan diagnosticperformanceofqfrfortheevaluationofintermediatecoronaryarterystenosisconfirmedbyfractionalflowreserve |