Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40269637›Full record

Observational studyCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2025

Diagnostic Accuracy of Angiography-Derived Murray Law-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio (μQFR) Versus Pressure-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) in Moderate to Severe Calcified Coronary Lesions-The DIAMOND Study.

Wesley Bennar, Diego Arroyo, Charline Oppé, Dorian Garin, Laure Allemann, Thaïs Pittet, Pascal Meier, Serban Puricel, Mario Togni, Stephane Cook

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

10 authors.

Wesley BennarDepartment of Cardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Villars-sur-Glâne, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0004-2650-3009
Diego ArroyoDepartment of Cardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Villars-sur-Glâne, Switzerland.
Charline OppéDepartment of Cardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Villars-sur-Glâne, Switzerland.
Dorian GarinDepartment of Cardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Villars-sur-Glâne, Switzerland.
Laure AllemannDepartment of Cardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Villars-sur-Glâne, Switzerland.
Thaïs PittetDepartment of Cardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Villars-sur-Glâne, Switzerland.
Pascal MeierDepartment of Cardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Villars-sur-Glâne, Switzerland.
Serban PuricelDepartment of Cardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Villars-sur-Glâne, Switzerland.
Mario TogniDepartment of Cardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Villars-sur-Glâne, Switzerland.
Stephane CookDepartment of Cardiology, University and Hospital Fribourg, Villars-sur-Glâne, Switzerland.

Funding

The independent funding was provided by the Fonds Scientifique Cardiovasculaire and Fondation Cecil de Recherche Cardiovasculaire.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMurray law-based Quantitative Flow Ratio (μQFR) is an innovative AI-driven method for evaluating coronary lesions using contrast flow velocity estimates. Unlike traditional approaches, μQFR does not require pressure wires or hyperemia induction. However, its accuracy compared to Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) for calcified lesions (ACC/AHA classification B2 or C) remains underexplored.

aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of μQFR in detecting hemodynamically significant calcified coronary stenosis, defined as FFR ≤ 0.80.

methodsIn this two-center, investigator-initiated trial, patients with calcified lesions (B2 or C, 30%-90% diameter stenosis) and FFR assessment during coronary angiography were included. μQFR was calculated by a nurse blinded to the FFR results. Sensitivity and specificity of μQFR were compared with FFR as the gold standard.

resultsAmong 125 patients, paired μQFR and FFR data were available for 107 patients and 120 lesions. Mean FFR, μQFR, and percent stenosis were 0.775 (95% CI: 0.757-0.793), 0.788 (95% CI: 0.772-0.805), and 56.75% ( ± 10.14%), respectively. μQFR demonstrated a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI: 65.6%-84.6%), a specificity of 77.8% (95% CI: 63.5%-92.0%), a diagnostic precision of 75.8% and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.813 (95% CI: 0.714-0.911). The positive predictive value was 88.7%, and the negative predictive value was 57.1%. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 3.38 and 0.32, respectively.

conclusionμQFR is simple to compute and offers moderate diagnostic accuracy for calcified coronary stenosis. It provides a valuable alternative when FFR is unavailable or technically challenging.

Indexed as

Cardiac CatheterizationCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary StenosisCoronary VesselsFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialVascular CalcificationAgedBlood Flow VelocityFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesReproducibility of Resultscalcified coronary lesionsFFRfractional flow reserveMurray law‐based quantitative flow ratioμQFR

Identifiers

PMID40269637
PMCPMC12231159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.