From the Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark (J.W., S.W., M.-B.V., B.K.A., E.N.H., C.F.M., L.N.A., J.K.S., S.D.K., M.M., A.K., C.J.T., L.R.K., L.J., J.F.L., H.E.B., E.H.C., N.R.H.); Med-X Research Institute, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China (S.T., Y.Z.); Department of Cardiology, Hospitalsenheden Vest, Regionshospitalet Herning, Denmark (L.N., M.B.); Department of Cardiology, Hospitalsenheden Midt, Regionshospitalet Silkeborg, Denmark (J.K.J.); and Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, The Netherlands (J.H.C.R.).
Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Background—Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel diagnostic modality for functional testing of coronary artery stenosis without the use of pressure wires and induction of hyperemia. QFR is based on computation of standard invasive coronary angiographic imaging. The purpose of WIFI II (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II) was to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of QFR in unselected consecutive patients.Methods and Results—WIFI II was a predefined substudy to the Dan-NICAD study (Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease), referring 362 consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease on coronary computed tomographic angiography for diagnostic invasive coronary angiography. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) was measured in all segments with 30% to 90% diameter stenosis. Blinded observers calculated QFR (Medis Medical Imaging bv, The Netherlands) for comparison with FFR. FFR was measured in 292 lesions from 191 patients. Ten (5%) and 9 patients (5%) were excluded because of FFR and angiographic core laboratory criteria, respectively. QFR was successfully computed in 240 out of 255 lesions (94%) with a mean diameter stenosis of 50±12%. Mean difference between FFR and QFR was 0.01±0.08. QFR correctly classified 83% of the lesions using FFR with cutoff at 0.80 as reference standard. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.81–0.91) with a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 77%, 86%, 75%, and 87%, respectively. A QFR–FFR hybrid approach based on the present results enables wire-free and adenosine-free procedures in 68% of cases.Conclusions—Functional lesion evaluation by QFR assessment showed good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with FFR. Studies comparing clinical outcome after QFR- and FFR-based diagnostic strategies are required.Clinical Trial Registration—URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02264717.