ArticleKorean circulation journal2021
Association of Quantitative Flow Ratio with Lesion Severity and Its Ability to Discriminate Myocardial Ischemia.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Implications of Prestent Pullback Pressure Gradient and Poststent Quantitative Flow Ratio in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Trial
- Effects of Pulsatile Flow on Fractional Flow Reserve Assessed Using a Reduced-Order Model.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Practical Application of Coronary Physiologic Assessment: Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Document: Part 1.JACC. Asia · 2023Review
- Comparison of 2D-QCA, 3D-QCA and coronary angiography derived FFR in predicting myocardial ischemia assessed by CZT-SPECT MPI.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- Quantitative flow ratio derived pullback pressure gradient and CZT-SPECT measured longitudinal flow gradient for hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- Practical Approach for Angina and Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries: A State-of-the-Art Review.Korean circulation journal · 2023Review
- Sex Differences in Murray Law-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio Among Patients With Intermediate Coronary Lesions.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
- Differential Prognostic Implications of Pre- and Post-Stent Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Korean circulation journal · 2022Article
- Would a Noninvasive Coronary Physiology Become a Standard and Popular Approach?Korean circulation journal · 2021Article
- Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease by Myocardial Flow Reserve Versus Pressure-wire Based Assessment: A Systematic Review.Annals of nuclear cardiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesQuantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based technique for functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis. This study investigated the response of QFR to different degree of stenosis severity and its ability to predict the positron emission tomography (PET)-defined myocardial ischemia.
methodsFrom 109 patients with 185 vessels who underwent both 13N-ammonia PET and invasive physiological measurement, we compared QFR, fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) for the responses to the different degree of anatomical (percent diameter stenosis [%DS]) and hemodynamic (relative flow reserve [RFR], coronary flow reserve, hyperemic stenosis resistance, and stress myocardial flow) stenosis severity and diagnostic performance against PET-derived parameters.
resultsQFR, FFR, and iFR showed similar responses to both anatomic and hemodynamic stenosis severity. Regarding RFR, the diagnostic accuracy of QFR was lower than FFR (76.2% vs. 83.2%, p=0.021) and iFR (76.2% vs. 84.3%, p=0.031). For coronary flow capacity (CFC), QFR showed a lower accuracy than iFR (74.1% vs. 82%, p=0.031) and lower discriminant function than FFR (area under curve: 0.74 vs. 0.79, p=0.044). Discordance between QFR and FFR or iFR was shown in 14.6% of cases and was driven by the difference in %DS and heterogeneous distribution of PET-derived RFR and stress myocardial blood flow.
conclusionsQFR demonstrated a similar response to different anatomic and hemodynamic stenosis severity as FFR or iFR. However, its diagnostic performance was inferior to FFR and iFR when PET-derived RFR and CFC were used as a reference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.