Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35800353›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2022

Diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio, non-hyperaemic pressure indices and fractional flow reserve for the assessment of coronary lesions in severe aortic stenosis.

Cameron Dowling, Michael Michail, Jun Michael Zhang, Andrea Comella, Udit Thakur, Robert Gooley, Liam McCormick, Adam J Brown, Dennis T L Wong

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Cameron DowlingMonashHeart, Monash Health and Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael MichailSussex Cardiac Centre, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK.
Jun Michael ZhangMonashHeart, Monash Health and Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Andrea ComellaMonashHeart, Monash Health and Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Udit ThakurMonashHeart, Monash Health and Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Robert GooleyMonashHeart, Monash Health and Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Liam McCormickMonashHeart, Monash Health and Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Adam J BrownMonashHeart, Monash Health and Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Dennis T L WongMonashHeart, Monash Health and Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Monash Health · AUMonash University · AUUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) may be used to assess the functional significance of coronary lesions. Only limited validation exists for this technology in the setting of severe aortic stenosis. Methods: A prospective study was performed on patients who were being considered for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. QFR analysis was performed (Medis Medical Imaging System, Leiden, The Netherlands) and compared to invasive measurements of haemodynamic assessment [fractional flow reserve (FFR), instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), diastolic pressure ratio during the wave-free period (dPR) and distal arterial pressure/arterial pressure (Pd/Pa)]. Results: A total of 35 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 75.5±6.5 and mean aortic valve gradient was 44.3±11.8 mmHg. There were 57 vessels analysed. The mean FFR was 0.83±0.10 and 22 vessels (39%) had a functionally significant FFR ≤0.80. QFR demonstrated a discriminatory power to predict functionally significant FFR [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84 to 1.00], representing a sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 91%, positive predictive value of 84%, negative predictive value of 84% and an accuracy of 84%. QFR also demonstrated a discriminatory power to predict functionally significant iFR ≤0.89 (AUC =0.92; 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.99), dPR ≤0.89 (AUC =0.90; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.98) and Pd/Pa ≤0.92 (AUC =0.89; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97). Conclusions: QFR demonstrates acceptable diagnostic performance in patients with severe aortic stenosis when both FFR and non-hyperaemic pressure indices are used as reference standards.

Indexed as

aortic stenosiscomputed tomography (CT)fractional flow reserve (FFR)instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)Quantitative flow ratio (QFR)

Identifiers

PMID35800353
PMCPMC9253165
OpenAlexW4284974533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.