Current issue
Archive
Manuscripts accepted
About the Journal
Editorial office
Editorial board
Section Editors
Abstracting and indexing
Subscription
Contact
Ethical standards and procedures
Most read articles
Instructions for authors
Article Processing Charge (APC)
Regulations of paying article processing charge (APC)
CARDIAC SURGERY / SYSTEMATIC REVIEW/META-ANALYSIS
Diagnostic performance of wireless fractional flow reserve: a meta-analysis
1
Department of Cardiology, Kunshan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunshan, Jiangsu, China
Submission date: 2019-07-05
Final revision date: 2020-01-13
Acceptance date: 2020-02-06
Online publication date: 2021-01-12
Corresponding author
Qing-Jun Liu
Department of Cardiology, Kunshan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunshan, Jiangsu, China
Department of Cardiology, Kunshan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunshan, Jiangsu, China
Arch Med Sci 2025;21(4):1414-1420
KEYWORDS
fractional flow reservequantitative coronary angiographycomputational fluid dynamicscoronary artery disease
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The aim of this study was to evaluate diagnostic performance of wireless fractional flow reserve (FFR) used in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).
Material and methods:
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Clinical trial.gov databases were searched by computer search and manual retrieval. The search terms included fractional flow reserve, quantitative coronary angiography, computational fluid dynamics and coronary artery disease. The meta-analysis was conducted with Stata12.0. Clinical outcomes included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (–LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the receiver operating curve.
Results:
Nine studies comprising 2052 vessels were included in the present meta-analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, +LR, –LR, DOC and accuracy were 87% (95% CI: 83–94%), 88% (95% CI: 82–92%), 7.28 (95% CI: 4.78–11.08), 0.14 (95% CI: 0.10–0.21), 50.69 (95% CI: 25.22–101.88) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91–0.96) respectively. No significant publication bias was detected.
Conclusions:
This meta-analysis suggests that the clinical performance such as accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of wireless FFR is good to detect stenotic lesions with pressure-wire measured FFR as a reference.
The aim of this study was to evaluate diagnostic performance of wireless fractional flow reserve (FFR) used in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).
Material and methods:
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Clinical trial.gov databases were searched by computer search and manual retrieval. The search terms included fractional flow reserve, quantitative coronary angiography, computational fluid dynamics and coronary artery disease. The meta-analysis was conducted with Stata12.0. Clinical outcomes included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (–LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the receiver operating curve.
Results:
Nine studies comprising 2052 vessels were included in the present meta-analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, +LR, –LR, DOC and accuracy were 87% (95% CI: 83–94%), 88% (95% CI: 82–92%), 7.28 (95% CI: 4.78–11.08), 0.14 (95% CI: 0.10–0.21), 50.69 (95% CI: 25.22–101.88) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91–0.96) respectively. No significant publication bias was detected.
Conclusions:
This meta-analysis suggests that the clinical performance such as accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of wireless FFR is good to detect stenotic lesions with pressure-wire measured FFR as a reference.
REFERENCES (34)
1.
Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64 -row CT. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2324-36.
2.
Westwood ME, Raatz HD, Misso K, et al. Systematic review of the accuracy of dual-source cardiac CT for detection of arterial stenosis in difficult to image patient groups. Radiology 2013; 267: 387-95.
3.
Yang L, Zhou T, Zhang R, et al. Meta-analysis: diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography with prospective ECG gating based on step-and-shoot, Flash and volume modes for detection of coronary artery disease. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 2345-52.
4.
Ahmadi A, Kini A, Narula J. Discordance between ischemia and stenosis, or PINSS and NIPSS: are we ready for new vocabulary. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2015; 8: 111-4.
5.
Toth G, Hamilos M, Pyxaras S, et al. Evolving concepts of angiogram: fractional flow reserve discordances in 4000 coronary stenoses. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 2831-8.
6.
Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58: e44-122.
7.
Curzen N, Rana O, Nicholas Z, et al. Does routine pressure wire assessment influence man- agement strategy at coronary angiography for diagnosis of chest pain? The Ripcord Study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7: 248-55.
8.
Van Belle E, Rioufol G, Pouillot C, et al. Outcome impact of coronary revascularization strategy reclassificatio with fractional flow reserve at time of diagnostic angiography: insights from a large French multicenter fractional flow reserve registry. Circulation 2014; 129: 173-85.
9.
Park SJ, Ahn JM, Park GM, et al. Trends in the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with the routine incorporation of fractional flow reserve in real practice. Eur Heart J 2013; 34: 3353-61.
10.
Ford ES, Roger VL, Dunlay SM, Go AS, Rosamond WD. Challenges of ascertaining national trends in the incidence of coronary heart disease in the United States. J Am Heart Assoc 2014; 3: e001097.
11.
Morris PD, van de Vosse FN, Lawford PV, Hose DR, Gunn JP. “Virtual” (computed) fractional flow reserve: current challenges and limitations. JACC Covdiovasc lnterv 2015; 8: 1009-17.
12.
Morris PD, Ryan D, Morton AC, et al. Virtual fractional flow reserve from coronary angiography: modeling the significance of coronary lesions: results from the VIRTU-1 (VIRTUal Fractional Flow Reserve from Coronary Angiography) study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6: 149-57.
13.
Papafaklis MI, Muramatsu T, Ishibashi Y, et al. Fast virtual functional assessment of intermediate coronary lesions using routine angiographic data and blood flow simulation in humans: comparison with pressure wire-fractional flow reserve. EuroIntervention 2014; 10: 574-83.
14.
Tu S, Barbato E, Koszegi Z, et al. Fractional flow reserve calculation from 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography and TIMI frame count: a fast computer model to quantitative the functional significance of moderately obstructed coronary arteries. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7: 768-77.
15.
Tu S, Westra J, Yang J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fast computational approaches to derive fractional flow reserve from diagnostic coronary angiography: the international multicenter FAVOR pilot study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9: 2024-35.
16.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al.; Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: W1-12.
17.
Nørgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps). J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63: 1145-55.
18.
Park HB, Heo R, Hartaigh BÓ, et al. Atherosclerotic plaque characteristics by CT angiography identify coronary lesions that cause ischemia: a direct comparison to fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2015; 8: 1-10.
19.
Emori H, Kubo T, Kameyama T, et al. Quantitative flow ratio and instantaneous wave-free ratio for the assessment of the functional severity of intermediate coronary artery stenosis. Coron Artery Dis 2018; 29: 611-7.
20.
Xu B, Tu S, Qiao S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of angiography-based quantitative flow ratio measurements for online assessment of coronary stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70: 3077-87.
21.
Yazaki K, Otsuka M, Kataoka S, et al. Applicability of 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography-derived computed fractional flow reserve for intermediate coronary stenosis. Circ J 2017; 81: 988-92.
22.
Westra J, Andersen BK, Campo G, et al. Diagnostic performance of in-procedure angiography-derived quantitative flow reserve compared to pressure-derived fractional flow reserve: the FAVOR II Europe-Japan Study. J Am Heart Assoc 2018; 7: e009603.
23.
Tröbs M, Achenbach S, Röther J, et al. Comparison of fractional flow reserve based on computational fluid dynamics modeling using coronary angiographic vessel morphology versus invasively measured fractional flow reserve. Am J Cardiol 2015; 117: 29-35.
24.
Consensus Committee of Clinical Application of Coronary Flow Fraction Reserve. Consensus on clinical application of coronary flow fraction reserve. Chin J Cardiol 2016; 44: 292-7.
25.
Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49: 2105-11.
26.
Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B, et al. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 2816-21.
27.
Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 213-24.
28.
Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis. 5-Year follow-up of the DEFER study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49: 2105-11.
29.
Johnson NP, Toth GG, Lai D, et al. Prognostic value of fractional flow reserve: linking physiologic severity to clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64: 1641-54.
30.
Collet C, Onuma Y, Sonck J, et al. Diagnostic performance of angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2018; 39: 3314-21.
31.
Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi HM, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2018; 391: 31-40.
32.
Ahmed N, Layland J, Carrick D, et al. Safety of guidewire-based measurement of fractional flow reserve and the index of microvascular resistance using intravenous adenosine in patients with acute or recent myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol 2016; 202: 305-10.
33.
Trobs M, Achenbach S, Rother J, et al. Comparison of fractional flow reserve based on computational fluid dynamics modeling using coronary angiographic vessel morphology versus invasively measured fractional flow reserve. Am J Cardiol 2016; 117: 29-35.
34.
Kornowski R, Lavi l, Pellicano M, et al. Fractional flow reserve derived from routine coronary angiograms. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68: 2235-7.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1896-9151 |
| ISSN: | 1734-1922 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
