Angiographic quantitative flow ratio in acute coronary syndrome: beyond a tool to define ischemia-causing stenosis-a literature review.

Background and Objective: Numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of physiology-guided coronary revascularization in chronic coronary syndrome, resulting in a high level of guideline recommendation for these patients. However, the application of coronary physiology in acute coronary syndrome (ACS), especially in the acute phase of myocardial infarction, remains challenging. Over the last decade, the number of novel physiological indices derived from the computation of angiography have been developed as alternatives to pressure wire-based fractional flow reserve. Among these angiography-based indices, the quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is undoubtedly the one with the largest amount of data cumulated so far. In this article, we aim to review the related studies that describe efforts to investigate the diagnostic role of QFR and discuss perspectives for its current and future applications in the setting of the ACS. Methods: A literature search was performed on the electronic databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar and Web of Science covering publications in English up to May 2022. Key Content and Findings: An emerging body of evidence has validated the diagnostic accuracy of angiography-derived QFR for the assessment of functional severity of coronary stenosis in both acute and chronic coronary syndromes. In parallel, multiple technologies, i.e., QFR-based pullback pressure gradient index, angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance and intravascular imaging-based morphofunctional evaluation methods, have been proposed, allowing operators to easily obtained physiological data of micro and macro-circulation, together with atherosclerotic lesion characteristics in catheterization laboratories. More recently, promising results supporting the clinical value of QFR in guiding revascularization and predicting outcomes for ACS patients have been published. Conclusions: Angiography-based QFR bears the potential of a wider adoption of coronary physiology assessment in the ACS setting due to its quicker and less-invasive nature. However, the current evidence mainly derived from retrospective studies or post-hoc analyses of prospective trials. Future studies are needed to further explore the benefits of QFR-guided revascularization on outcomes in ACS.