Simplifying the assessment of coronary artery stenosis by enhancing instantaneous wave free ratio

Current approach to the diagnosis of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease: more questions than answers

Despite its commonality in routine clinical practice, the approach to a diagnosis of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease remains complex and, in part, contentious. The traditional dogma linking ischaemia to hard clinical outcomes has been questioned and reframed over the years; rather than being a predictor of hard clinical outcomes, the degree of ischaemia may simply be a marker of atherosclerotic disease burden. A renewed interest in the imaging of plaque burden has spawned the contemporary role of CT imaging for not only diagnosis and prognosis, but also for dictating downstream management. As the technology develops and evidence expands, decisions on investigative modalities remain centred around patient factors, local availability, test performance and cost. This review summarizes the available methods for diagnosis in the symptomatic patient and provides an overview of the current evidence behind functional and anatomical approaches.

Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio versus Quantitative Flow Ratio for Detecting the Functional Significance of Coronary Stenosis

Background

Fractional flow reserve (FFR), as a functional measurement of coronary stenosis, is recommended for guiding revascularization in intermediate coronary lesions. However, it still remains underutilized for potential reasons including time consumption, costs, or contraindications associated with adenosine administration. Here we performed this meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of two adenosine-free indices, instantaneous wave free-ratio (iFR), and quantitative flow ratio (QFR) in evaluating coronary stenosis severity with FFR as the reference standard.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to include relevant studies with the diagnostic accuracy of iFR or QFR referenced to FFR. A bivariate model was applied to pool diagnostic parameters. We used Cochran's Q test and I² index to assess heterogeneity and identify the potential source of heterogeneity by meta-regression.

Results

A total of 8213 lesions from 28 studies (19 for iFR and 9 for QFR) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.83) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.87) for iFR and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.93) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.90) for QFR, respectively. Significantly higher sensitivity and specificity were observed in the bivariate analysis for QFR than for iFR (P < 0.001 for both). The area under summary receiver-operating curve of iFR and QFR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.92) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89 to 0.94).

Conclusion

Evidence suggests that both of the two indices have good performance in detecting functional ischemia of coronary arteries and QFR might be a promising method without requiring the pressure wire. Further application of QFR may potentially provide important information to clinicians in the assessment of coronary lesions.