Quantitative Flow Ratio Is Related to Anatomic Left Main Stem Lesion Parameters as Assessed by Intravascular Imaging.
coronary artery disease
coronary physiology
intravascular imaging
intravascular ultrasound
left main stem
optical coherence tomography
quantitative flow ratio
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Oct 2022
12 Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
02
09
2022
revised:
29
09
2022
accepted:
10
10
2022
entrez:
27
10
2022
pubmed:
28
10
2022
medline:
28
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Introduction: Previously, an association between anatomic left main stem (LMS) lesion parameters, as described by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and fractional flow reserve (FFR), was shown. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel, promising technique which can assess functional stenosis relevance based only on angiography. However, as little is known about the relationship between anatomic LMS parameters and QFR, it was thus investigated in this study. Methods: In 53 patients with LMS disease, we tested the association between anatomic assessment using OCT (n = 28) or IVUS (n = 25) on the one hand and functional assessment as determined by QFR on the other hand. LMS-QFR was measured using a dedicated approach, averaging QFR over left anterior descending (LAD) and circumflex (LCX) and manually limiting segment of interest to LMS. Results: The minimal luminal area of the LMS (LMS-MLA) as measured by intravascular imaging showed a consistent correlation with QFR (R = 0.61, p < 0.001). QFR could predict a LMS-MLA < 6 mm2 with very good diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.919) and a LMS-MLA < 4.5 mm2 with good accuracy (AUC 0.798). Similar results were obtained for other stenosis parameters. Conclusions: QFR might be a valuable tool to assess LMS disease. Further studies focusing on patient outcomes are needed to further validate the effectiveness of this approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36294345
pii: jcm11206024
doi: 10.3390/jcm11206024
pmc: PMC9604622
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest
Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 May 26;65(20):2198-206
pubmed: 25787197
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Feb;11(2):e006023
pubmed: 29449325
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Feb 5;51(5):538-45
pubmed: 18237682
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Aug;7(8):868-74
pubmed: 25147031
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jul 19;58(4):351-8
pubmed: 21757111
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Mar;8(3):398-403
pubmed: 25790763
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Nov 1;94(5):686-692
pubmed: 30912257
Lancet. 2016 Dec 3;388(10061):2743-2752
pubmed: 27810312
EJIFCC. 2009 Jan 20;19(4):203-11
pubmed: 27683318
J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 24;10(9):
pubmed: 33923243
Eur Heart J. 2018 Sep 14;39(35):3281-3300
pubmed: 29790954
Kardiol Pol. 2018;76(12):1585-1664
pubmed: 30566213
N Engl J Med. 2011 May 5;364(18):1718-27
pubmed: 21463149
Lancet. 2020 Jan 18;395(10219):191-199
pubmed: 31879028
EuroIntervention. 2019 Aug 29;15(5):434-451
pubmed: 31258132
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2018 Jun;15(6):321-331
pubmed: 29599504
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Oct 10;9(19):2024-2035
pubmed: 27712739
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Apr;6(2):161-5
pubmed: 23549643
N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 8;375(23):2223-2235
pubmed: 27797291
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jul 6;56(2):117-24
pubmed: 20451344
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 26;70(25):3077-3087
pubmed: 29101020
EuroIntervention. 2020 Apr 03;15(18):e1594-e1601
pubmed: 31543501
Int J Cardiol. 2020 Feb 15;301:226-234
pubmed: 31677827
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Feb 22;9(4):318-327
pubmed: 26892080
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Jul 6;7(14):
pubmed: 29980523
Circulation. 2009 Oct 13;120(15):1505-12
pubmed: 19786633
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Circulation. 1978 May;57(5):947-52
pubmed: 639216
Clin Res Cardiol. 2021 Oct;110(10):1659-1667
pubmed: 34251507
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jul;7(7):768-77
pubmed: 25060020