Research Correspondence

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00144

Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio in patients with arrhythmias

Andrea Milzi1,2, MD; Tobias Álvaro Thomsen3, MD; Antonio Landi1, MD; Rosalia Dettori2, MD; Nikolaus Marx2, MD; Florian Kahles2, MD; Javier Escaned4, MD, PhD; Hernán Mejía-Rentería4, MD; Mathias Burgmaier2,5, MD; Marco Valgimigli1, MD, PhD

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) has been validated as a wire-free, angiography-based method for the haemodynamic assessment of coronary stenoses1. Among the most important technical requirements for QFR calculation is the absence of arrhythmias, which imply variations in beat-to-beat coronary diastolic filling patterns. In previous studies, 8% of patients were excluded from QFR calculation due to arrhythmias2. No study has so far attempted to validate QFR in patients with arrhythmias. Therefore, we sought to compare the diagnostic performance of QFR in patients with arrhythmias against wire-based physiology indices such as fractional flow reserve (FFR) or non-hyperaemic pressure ratios (NHPR), which are regarded as gold standards in determining the haemodynamic relevance of coronary stenoses.

A total of 214 vessels (81 assessed with FFR, 133 with NHPR) in 161 consecutive patients with chronic coronary syndrome and arrhythmias (defined as atrial fibrillation [AFib] or extrasystole >20% of beats) during coronary angiography who had undergone assessment of at least 1 stenosis with FFR or NHPR across 3 European sites were retrospectively included. These measures were not included in prior studies. The presence of arrhythmia...

Sign in to read
the full article

Forgot your password?
No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com

Volume 20 Number 16
Aug 19, 2024
Volume 20 Number 16
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-23-00031 Aug 7, 2023
Quantitative flow ratio and cardiovascular risk: paralleling the FFR ischaemic continuum
Kern M
free

Debate

10.4244/EIJ-E-25-00009 Jun 16, 2025
Guideline recommendations for QFR should be revisited: pros and cons
Fearon W and Biscaglia S

Clinical Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00471 Apr 22, 2022
Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) for the assessment of stenosis severity: the FAST II study
Masdjedi K et al
free

Clinical Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00425 Feb 18, 2022
Reproducibility of quantitative flow ratio: the QREP study
Westra J et al
free

Debate

10.4244/EIJ-E-24-00031 Oct 7, 2024
Quantitative flow ratio will supplant wire-based physiological indices: pros and cons
Holm NR et al
free

Short report

10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00955 Aug 6, 2021
Quantitative flow ratio for functional evaluation of in-stent restenosis
Liontou C et al
free
Trending articles
172.05

Focus article

10.4244/EIJY19M08_01 Jan 17, 2020
EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – an update
Glikson M et al
free
79.3

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00066 Apr 21, 2025
Management of complications after valvular interventions
Bansal A et al
free
42

Original Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00331 May 21, 2025
One-month dual antiplatelet therapy followed by prasugrel monotherapy at a reduced dose: the 4D-ACS randomised trial
Jang Y et al
open access
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 9.5
2024 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2025)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2025 Europa Group - All rights reserved