QFR Predicts the Incidence of Long-Term Adverse Events in Patients with Suspected CAD: Feasibility and Reproducibility of the Method

Prognostic Value of Post-PCI Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

The post-percutaneous coronary intervention (post-PCI) fractional flow reserve (FFR) can detect suboptimal PCI or residual ischemia and potentially lead to fewer adverse clinical outcomes. We sought to investigate the predictive value of the angiography-derived FFR for adverse cardiovascular events in patients after PCI. We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, for studies published until March 2023 that investigated the prognostic role of angiography-derived fractional flow reserve values after PCI. We investigated the best predictive ability of the post-PCI angiography-derived FFR and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between post-PCI angiography-derived FFR values and adverse events. Thirteen cohort studies involving 6961 patients (9719 vascular lesions; mean follow-up: 2.2 years) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled HR of the studies using specific cut-off points for post-PCI angiography-derived FFR was 4.13 (95% CI, 2.92-5.82) for total cardiovascular events, while the pooled HRs for target vessel revascularization, cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization were 6.87 (95% CI, 4.93-9.56), 6.17 (95% CI, 3.52-10.80), 3.98 (95% CI, 2.37-6.66) and 6.27 (95% CI, 3.08-12.79), respectively. In a sensitivity analysis of three studies with 1789 patients assessing the predictive role of the post-PCI angiography-derived FFR as a continuous variable, we found a 58% risk reduction for future adverse events per 0.1 increase in the post-PCI angiography-derived FFR value. In conclusion, post-PCI angiography-derived FFR is an effective tool for predicting adverse cardiovascular events and could be potentially used in decision making, both during PCI and in the long-term follow-up.

Quantitative flow ratio vs. angiography-only guided PCI in STEMI patients: one-year cardiovascular outcomes

BACKGROUND

Coronary physiology-guided PCIs are recommended worldwide. However, invasive coronary physiology methods prolong the procedure, create additional risks for the patients, and prolong the fluoroscopy time for an interventional cardiologist. Otherwise, there is a noninvasive coronary physiology evaluation method, QFR, that can be safely used even in STEMI patients.

METHODS

A total of 198 patients admitted with STEMI and at least one intermediate (35-75%) diameter stenosis other than the culprit artery between July 2020 and June 2021 were prospectively included in this single-center study. All patients were randomized into one of two groups (1 - QFR-guided PCI; 2 - visual-estimation-only guided PCI). A 12-month follow-up with echocardiography, exercise stress test, and quality of life evaluation was performed in all included patients. For the QOF evaluation, the Seattle Angina Score Questionnaire was chosen. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson's chi-squared test and Kaplan-Meier estimator.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight (49.5%) patients were randomized to the first group, and 100 (50.5%) patients were included in the second group. Statistically, significantly more patients had a medical history of dyslipidemia (98 vs. 91, p = 0.002) and slightly better left ventricular ejection fraction (42.21 ± 7.88 vs. 39.45 ± 9.62, p = 0.045) in the QFR group. Six fewer patients required non-culprit artery revascularization within the 12-month FU in the QFR group (1.02% vs. 6%, p = 0.047). Survival analysis proved that patients in the Angio group had a more than 6-fold greater risk for death within a 12-month period after MI (OR 6.23, 95% CI 2.20-17.87, p = 0.006), with the highest mortality risk within the first two months after initial treatment.

CONCLUSION

Using QFR in non-culprit lesions in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction reduces mortality and revascularization at the 12-month follow-up and improves the quality of life of the patient.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was approved by the Regional Bioethical Committee and conducted under the principles of the Helsinki Declaration and local laws and regulations.

Coronary functional assessment in non-obstructive coronary artery disease: Present situation and future direction

Non-obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), which is defined as coronary stenosis <50%, has been increasingly recognized as an emerging entity in clinical practice. Vasomotion abnormality and coronary microvascular dysfunction are two major mechanisms contributing to the occur of angina with non-obstructive CAD. Although routine coronary functional assessment is limited due to several disadvantages, functional evaluation can help to understand the pathophysiological mechanism and/or to exclude specific etiologies. In this review, we summarized the potential mechanisms involved in ischemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA) and myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA), the two major form of non-obstructive CAD. Additionally, we reviewed currently available functional assessment indices and their use in non-obstructive CAD. Furthermore, we speculated that novel technique combined anatomic and physiologic parameters might provide more individualized therapeutic choice for patients with non-obstructive CAD.

Quantitative Flow Ratio or Angiography for the Assessment of Non-culprit Lesions in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Protocol of the Randomized Trial QUOMODO

Background

Approximately 50% of the patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have additional stenotic lesions in non-infarct-related coronary arteries. The decision whether these stenoses require further treatment is routinely based on angiography alone. The quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a simple non-invasive method that may help quantify the functional significance of these intermediate coronary artery lesions. The aim of our single-center, randomized superiority trial is to test the impact and efficacy of QFR, as compared to angiography, in the treatment of patients with ACS with multivessel coronary artery disease. Primary goal of the study is to investigate 1. The impact of QFR on the proportion of patients receiving PCI vs. conservative therapy and 2. whether QFR improves angina pectoris and overall cardiovascular outcomes.

Methods and Analysis

After treatment of the culprit lesion(s), a total of 200 consecutive ACS patients will be randomized 1:1 to angiography- vs. QFR-guided revascularization of non-culprit stenoses. Patients and clinicians responsible are blinded to the randomization group. The primary functional endpoint is defined as the proportion of patients assigned to medical treatment in the two groups. The primary clinical endpoint is a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularization and significant angina at 12 months. Secondary endpoints include changes in the SAQ subgroups, and clinical events at 3- and 12-month follow-up.

Discussion

This study is designed to investigate whether QFR-based decision-making is associated with a decrease in angina and an improved prognosis in patients with multivessel disease.

Trial Registration Number

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04808310).

Angiography-based estimation of coronary physiology: A frame is worth a thousand words

Cumulative evidence has shown that coronary revascularization should be guided by functional significance of coronary lesions. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold standard for assessment of hemodynamic significance of coronary stenosis and FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention has improved clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. However, limitations of FFR such as increased operational time and cost, requirement of pressure wire and adenosine and technical difficulties have led to significant underutilization of the method in clinical practice. In the last few years, several methods of FFR estimation based on coronary angiography images have emerged to overcome invasive FFR limitations. The common elements of the novel indices include a 3D anatomical reconstruction of coronary vessels by angiographic projections and various approaches to fluid dynamics computation. Angiography-derived FFR methods have shown high diagnostic accuracy compared to invasive FFR. Although there are promising results regarding their prognostic role, large randomized trials evaluating clinical outcomes are lacking. The aim of this review is to present currently available angiography-derived FFR indices and highlight their differences, advantages, disadvantages and potential clinical implications.

Agreement of Angiography-Derived and Wire-Based Fractional Flow Reserves in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background: Coronary angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (caFFR) measurements have shown good correlations and agreement with invasive wire-based fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. However, few studies have examined the diagnostic performance of caFFR measurements before and after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study sought to compare the diagnostic performance of caFFR measurements against wire-based FFR measurements in patients before and after PCI.

Methods: Patients who underwent FFR-guided PCI were eligible for the acquisition of caFFR measurements. Offline caFFR measurements were performed by blinded hospital operators in a core laboratory. The primary endpoint was the vessel-oriented composite endpoint (VOCE), defined as a composite of vessel-related cardiovascular death, vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

Results: A total of 105 pre-PCI caFFR measurements and 65 post-PCI caFFR measurements were compared against available wire-based FFR measurements. A strong linear correlation was found between wire-based FFR and caFFR measurements (r = 0.77; p < 0.001) before PCI, and caFFR measurements also showed a high correlation (r = 0.82; p < 0.001) with wire-based FFR measurements after PCI. A total of 6 VOCEs were observed in 61 patients during follow-up. Post-PCI FFR values (≤0.82) in the target vessel was the strongest predictor of VOCE [hazard ratio (HR): 5.59; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12–27.96; p = 0.036). Similarly, patients with low post-PCI caFFR values (≤0.83) showed an 8-fold higher risk of VOCE than those with high post-PCI caFFR values (>0.83; HR: 8.83; 95% CI: 1.46–53.44; p = 0.017).

Conclusion: The study showed that the caFFR measurements were well-correlated and in agreement with invasive wire-based FFR measurements before and after PCI. Similar to wire-based FFR measurements, post-PCI caFFR measurements can be used to identify patients with a higher risk for adverse events associated with PCI.

Physiological benefits evaluated by quantitative flow ratio in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

To explore the clinical benefits of revascularization in patients with different levels of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from the perspective of quantitative flow ratio (QFR).

METHODS

Patients who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and one-year angiographic follow-up were retrospectively screened and computed by QFR analysis. Based on their LVEF, 301 eligible patients were classified into reduced LVEF (≤ 50%, n = 48) and normal LVEF (> 50%, n = 253) groups. Pre-PCI QFR, post-PCI QFR, follow-up QFR, late lumen loss (LLL), LVEF and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) at one year were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The reduced LVEF group had a lower mean pre-PCI QFR than the normal LVEF group (0.67 ± 0.16 vs. 0.73 ± 0.15, p = 0.004), but no significant difference was found in the post-PCI or one-year follow-up QFR. No association was found between LVEF and QFR at pre-PCI or follow-up. The reduced LVEF group had greater increases in QFR (0.27 ± 0.18 vs. 0.22 ± 0.15, p = 0.043) and LVEF (6.05 ± 9.45% vs. - 0.37 ± 8.11%, p < 0.001) than the normal LVEF group. The LLL results showed no difference between the two groups, indicating a similar degree of restenosis. The reduced LVEF group had a higher incidence of MACCEs (14.6% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.016), which was mainly due to the higher risk of heart failure (6.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Compared to the corresponding normal LVEF patients, patients with reduced LVEF who underwent successful PCI were reported to have greater increases in QFR and LVEF, a similar degree of restenosis, and a higher incidence of MACCEs due to a higher risk of heart failure. It seems that patients with reduced LVEF gain more coronary benefits from successful revascularization from the perspective of flow physiology evaluations.