ArticleJournal of the Saudi Heart Association2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Quantitative Coronary Analysis as Compared with Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Intermediate Coronary Lesions: A Prospective Vessel-Level Study.
Article in Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Instantaneous wave-free ratio (IFR) represents a new vasodilator-free innovative approach which is considered as a gold standard for functional assessment of the hemodynamic significance of intermediate coronary stenoses. Although relatively safe, iFR is still an invasive procedure that has its potential hazards, complications and cost. Two-dimensional quantitative coronary analysis (2D-QCA) is a non-invasive technique that has emerged robustly as an excellent and attractive tool for delineating coronary anatomy. Aims: To assess the ability of two-dimensional quantitative coronary analysis (2D-QCA) to guide decision-making for quantification of severity of intermediate coronary stenoses (40-80% diameter stenosis) in each of the three main coronary vessels, by evaluating its accuracy in predicting true instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) results. Methods and results: 2D-QCA followed by iFR were performed for intermediate coronary lesions (40-80% diameter stenosis by visual assessment) discovered during coronary angiography. 2D-QCA was used to measure MLA, MLD and lesion length. This was followed by iFR measurement for the same lesion. 2D-QCA was then compared to the iFR measurements in order to assess its accuracy in prediction of true iFR result. A total of 277 intermediate lesions (155 LAD, 67 LCX, 55 RCA) in 209 vessels from 166 patients were analyzed. Males comprised ~68% of cases; mean ages were 53.3 ± 8.2 (LAD), 55.7 ± 8.9 (LCX), and 56.0 ± 8.8 years (RCA). Disagreement between modalities occurred mostly in LAD (24.5%), followed by RCA (21.8%) and LCX (14.9%). Per-vessel QCA accuracy (AUC) for predicting iFR was highest in LCX (78.5%), then RCA (72.2%), and lowest in LAD (66.6%) (all p < 0.005). Optimal QCA stenosis area cutoffs were 50.5% (LCX), 52.5% (RCA), and 53.5% (LAD), with sensitivities of 72.0%, 62.1%, and 63.2%, and specificities of 69.0%, 65.4%, and 65.8%, respectively. Conclusion: 2D-QCA can be a practical tool that bears the potential of improving angiography-based assessment of intermediate lesions regarding its prediction for functional significance without any additional costs, especially when invasive functional assessment methods are not available or contraindicated. Although, this would minimize the burden and the time of invasive procedure, 2D-QCA cannot totally replace invasive functional assessment (iFR, FFR) of intermediate coronary stenoses especially in LAD intermediate lesions.
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.