SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.40 número2Evaluación y Utilidad del Cuestionario DASI (Duke Activity Score Index) para la Estimación de Capacidad Funcional en Población Chilena índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Revista chilena de cardiología

versión On-line ISSN 0718-8560

Resumen

FUENSALIDA, Alberto et al. Functional significance of coronary artery lesions evaluated by Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR): a comparison Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR). Rev Chil Cardiol [online]. 2021, vol.40, n.2, pp.96-103. ISSN 0718-8560.  http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-85602021000200096.

Background:

FFR is a gold standard used evaluate the severity of coronary artery lesions. QFR is a new non invasive technique for the same purpose based on the analysis of flow directly derived from routine coronary angiography, without additional intervention and with no induction of hyperemia. The aim was to compare the results obtained by QFR to those obtained by FFR in in terms of its predictive value.

Method:

Retrospective analysis of FFR measurements in routine coronary angiographic studies were compared to results obtained by means of QFR. Main left lesions were excluded. FFR was evaluated using pressure guides across the lesion under hyperemia induced by intracoronary or intravenous adenosine. Two orthogonal projections with no more than 25o difference between them were analyzed. The analysis was performed by two independent and operators blind to the results of FFR. The QAngioXA (Medis ®, Netherland) software was used in the analysis.

Results:

35 coronary arteries were analyzed: LAD 57.1%, RCA 20.9%; Cx 20%. QFR was available for 27 arteries, the rest being discarded due to inadequate orientation of the artery. Mean QFR was 0.81 (SD 0.118). Mean difference between QFR and DD FFR was 0,04 (SD 0,006) (NS). Interobserver correlation was good (r=0.95, P 0.07). In only 7.4% of arteries there was a notable though not statistically significant difference between FFR and QFR, either due to under estimation or overestimation of lesion severity by QFR compared to FFR. Using FFR as a gold standard method QFR revealed sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 93.8%, The respective numbers for either positive or negative predictive values were the same. Area under the ROC curve was 0.923 (95% C.I. 0.01-1.00).

Conclusion:

this study reveals similar results of QFR compared to FFE in the estimation of coronary lesion severity. Given that QFR is a significantly less invasive and less expensive method than FFR, it may lead to an increased use of flow analysis in the determination of coronary artery lesion severity.

Palabras clave : coronary angiography; physiology, coronary; angioplasty; fractional flow reserve.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español     · Español ( pdf )