State of the art

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00969

Functional coronary angiography for the assessment of the epicardial vessels and the microcirculation

Daniel Faria1,2, MD; Breda Hennessey1, MD; Asad Shabbir1, MD; Hernán Mejía-Rentería1, MD, PhD; Lin Wang1, MD; Joo Myung Lee3, MD, PhD; Hitoshi Matsuo4, MD, PhD; Simone Biscaglia5, MD; Bon-Kwon Koo6, MD, PhD; Bo Xu7, MD, PhD; Sérgio Baptista2,8, MD, PhD; Nievez Gonzalo1, MD, PhD; Javier Escaned1, MD, PhD

Abstract

Over the last decade, steady progress has been made in the ability to assess coronary stenosis relevance by merging computerised analyses of angiograms with fluid dynamic modelling. The new field of functional coronary angiography (FCA) has attracted the attention of both clinical and interventional cardiologists as it anticipates a new era of facilitated physiological assessment of coronary artery disease, without the need for intracoronary instrumentation or vasodilator drug administration, and an increased adoption of ischaemia-driven revascularisation. This state-of-the-art review performs a deep dive into the foundations and rationale behind FCA indices derived from either invasive or computed angiograms. We discuss the currently available FCA systems, the evidence supporting their use, and the specific clinical scenarios in which FCA might facilitate patient management. Finally, the rapidly growing application of FCA to the diagnosis of coronary microvascular dysfunction is discussed. Overall, we aim to provide a state-of-the-art review not only to digest the achievements made so far in FCA, but also to enable the reader to follow the many publications and developments in this field that will likely take place in years to come.

Introduction

More than half a century after revolutionising clinical practice, coronary angiography remains the cornerstone for the evaluation and treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). Notwithstanding its relevance as a diagnostic tool, coronary angiography is fraught with major limitations as a method to ascertain the functional relevance of coronary stenoses, particularly in lesions of intermediate angiographic severity1.

Attempts to bridge the gap between the angiographic morphology and functional relevance of coronary stenoses were led in the 1970s by Lance Gould and other investigators. These authors used stenosis geometry data, objectively assessed with the then newly developed quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) methods, and incorporated these data into fluid dynamic equations used to predict translesional pressure loss over a range of flow values and resistances, ultimately founding the basis for the development of coronary physiology assessment2.

However, the transition of this angiographic tool from the realm of research into clinical practice was hindered, on the one hand, by the lack of correlation with ischaemic and clinical outcomes3 and, on the other, by the development of intracoronary physiology, particularly fractional flow reserve (FFR), which initiated the era of catheter guidewires for evaluation of ischaemia4.

The additive benefit of FFR in clinical decision-making regarding revascularisation in patients with coronary stenoses has been clearly demonstrated in numerous dedicated randomised clinical trials567. Nevertheless, although this ultimately led to FFR being incorporated into international clinical practice guidelines over the following decade, coronary physiological interrogation remained largely underused in cardiac catheterisation laboratories8.

Explanations for the low penetrance in clinical practice are twofold: inertial (i.e., the operator’s apprehension about angiographic data and/or mistrust in coronary physiology) and technical (perceived complexity of adenosine infusion, procedural time and costs)9. The realisation that the adoption of invasive physiology was somewhat hampered by the requirement for vasodilatory drugs and coronary instrumentation has sparked two new developments in the last decade: 1) the introduction of non-hyperaemic indices, greatly simplifying the procedure by not mandating pharmacological hyperaemia induction; and, more recently, 2) the development of functional angiographic systems that can provide physiological information without either pressure guidewires or hyperaemic drugs (Figure 1).

In this review, we revisit the physiological principles and technical aspects of the different modalities of wireless functional coronary angiography (FCA), focusing on invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). We will also evaluate the existing evidence and discuss the clinical applicability of wireless FCA in specific clinical scenarios. Finally, we provide our vision for future prospects and how FCA will change current clinical practice.

Figure 1. Timeline of the evolution of non-invasive coronary physiology and the respective landmark studies. CAAS vFFR: vessel fractional flow reserve; caFFR: computational pressure-flow dynamics derived FFR; FFR: fractional flow reserve; FFRangio: angiography-derived FFR; FFRCT: computed tomography-derived FFR; QFR: quantitative flow ratio; vFFR: virtual fractional flow reserve

Key principles of functional coronary imaging

Basic concepts and caveats of invasive coronary physiology

To fully understand the developments made in FCA, it is important to revisit some key concepts of coronary physiology.

FFR is the most widely used pressure-derived index of functional coronary stenosis severity; it expresses the percentage reduction in myocardial blood supply attributable to the interrogated stenosis. A translesional pressure ratio of 0.75 obtained during maximal hyperaemia indicates an impairment in myocardial blood supply of 25%, compared to the supply in the hypothetical absence of that same stenosis.

The cornerstone of FFR, which enables the use of pressure as a surrogate of flow, is the linearity of the pressure/flow relationship during hyperaemia. Under hyperaemic conditions, the fall in coronary pressure caused by a stenosis is proportional to the fall in maximal blood supply to the myocardium.

In the epicardial coronary arteries, flow is driven by the myocardial perfusion pressure (MPP) and is equivalent to the difference between the aortic pressure (Pa) and the central venous pressure (Pv)10. Whenever there is an epicardial stenosis, the MPP is equivalent to the difference between the poststenotic distal pressure (Pd) and the Pv . Therefore, FFR can be estimated from pressure measurements as follows: Pd − Pv/Pa − Pv or ≈Pd/Pa, as the effect of central venous pressure is usually negligible. Uniquely, FFR has a constant value of 1.0 in every normal coronary artery and is not influenced by variations in blood pressure, myocardial contractility, or heart rate10.

The pressure loss across a coronary stenosis (ΔP) is dependent upon the severity of the narrowing and also on the magnitude of flow (Q) that goes through it11. Pressure loss across a stenosis is due to: 1) viscous friction (f) and 2) flow separation due to acceleration through the stenosis (t), which leads to blood swirling and reverse currents. The expression ΔP = fQ2 + tQ2 explains why there is a quadratic increment in pressure loss through a stenosis with an increase in coronary flow12.

Assessing functional stenosis relevance from coronary angiograms

To derive patient-specific estimations of blood flow and pressure in coronary arteries from coronary angiography, three fundamental steps must be followed: 1) selection of a fluid equation solver (computational fluid dynamics or simplified fluid dynamics equations), 2) reconstruction of a three-dimensional (3D) model of the coronary arteries, and 3) definition of boundary conditions (Figure 2)13.

Figure 2. Steps for obtaining a functional coronary imaging index. 1) Standard invasive coronary angiography or computed tomography angiography data are obtained. A quantitative 3-dimensional anatomical model is generated. 2) A physiological model of the coronary microcirculation is obtained from patient-specific data following specific principles: the resting coronary flow is proportional to the subtended myocardial mass; the microvascular resistance is inversely correlated with vessel size; the microvascular resistance is reduced during maximal hyperaemia. 3) Physical laws of fluid dynamics are applied to compute coronary blood flow, solving the Navier-Stokes equations or simplified equations. 4) The chosen functional index is calculated throughout the coronary artery. FFRCT: computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve; QFR: quantitative flow ratio; vFFR: virtual fractional flow reserve.

Solving fluid equations

Most image-based FFR techniques utilise computational fluid dynamics (CFD), a generic term used for all the mathematical engineering that is required to describe and analyse fluid flow. Through computational processing, the governing equations of fluid dynamics, i.e., Navier-Stokes equations, can be solved for the unknown coronary pressure and blood velocity that vary in position and time14. Blood density and viscosity are usually assumed when solving these equations, as blood, despite its complex rheological properties, can be managed as a Newtonian fluid with constant viscosity, particularly in large arteries15.

In order to reduce the computational power and time required to complete a full CFD analysis, and thus make it feasible for online vessel assessment in the catheterisation laboratory, a simplified version of CFD, using simpler mathematical coefficients, is frequently used in commercially available systems16. These approaches benefit from using actual blood flow velocity by using TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) frame count and aortic pressure values, which are directly accessible for online study, instead of standardised values17.

Coronary geometric models

A 3D reconstruction of the vessel lumen, which is used by most FCA systems, can be extracted from computed tomography (CT) images or from orthogonal invasive angiographic projections. Most systems integrate into the calculated metadata embedded in the DICOM image format, containing information on relevant parameters such as table/image intensifier height and frame rates. The obtained geometric model can then be divided into smaller entities, i.e., finite elements, forming the blocks of a virtual mesh, over which the equational unknowns are calculated14. It is important to keep in mind that friction losses causing flow limitation may be due to microhaemorrheological disturbances caused by diffuse disease. Capturing the haemodynamic effect of minute but extensive vessel irregularities with imaging techniques relies on a very accurate reconstruction of the arterial lumen, which may not be possible because of limits in angiographic resolution.

Boundary flow conditions

The haemodynamics of epicardial vessels are strongly influenced by phenomena such as the cardiac cycle, intrinsic microvascular resistance, and extravascular compression. Boundary conditions are the mathematical limits (inlet and outlet) upon which haemodynamic models are applied to the entrance and exit of the reconstructed vessel segments, to simulate the influence of such factors15. Although the inlet boundary is usually easily obtainable (through directly measuring aortic pressures or by proving a population average model) the same is not true for the outlet boundary, which includes terms such as microcirculatory resistance and central venous pressure. Preset conditions are frequently assumed, although, as previously discussed, the actual values of aortic pressure and flow velocity can be incorporated into the calculations to provide a more realistic estimate of boundary conditions15.

Functional analysis of invasive coronary angiograms

By not requiring invasive measurements, pharmacological hyperaemia induction, or incurring additional costs, angiography-based techniques provide a promising solution for performing either online or offline functional evaluations of coronary stenosis in the catheterisation laboratory (Central illustration). A number of different software approaches that estimate FFR from angiography have been developed with reported validation studies (Supplementary Table 1, Table 1). Of note, only four of them have supporting evidence derived from prospective multicentric studies.

Central illustration. Current commercially available functional indices based on invasive coronary angiography. The columns from left to right show user interface display after index calculation; number of angiographic projections needed; need for mean aortic pressure input; capacity to provide microcirculatory resistance evaluation; simultaneous side branch physiological interrogation; and the quality and quantity of published evidence. Colour code: green=advantage; yellow: amenable; red=disadvantage. CAAS vFFR: vessel fractional flow reserve; caFFR: computational pressure-flow dynamics derived FFR; FFR: fractional flow reserve; FFRangio: angiography-derived FFR; QFR: quantitative flow ratio; μQFR: Murray law-based QFR;

Table 1. Technical aspects of the different FCA indices and respective validation studies.

Technique Imaging modality Inlet Outlet Flow Pattern Equation solution Other Studies (Ref) Year Design Vessels Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV Corr. with invasive FFR
COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE QFR 3D-QCA Patient- averaged aortic pressure Free Fixed hyperaemic Steady Simplified equation fQFR FAVOR Pilot17 2016 Prospective offline 84 0.67 0.86 0.69 0.85 0.69
TIMI frame count Steady Simplified equation cQFR 0.74 0.91 0.80 0.88 0.77
Adenosine-induced Steady Simplified equation aQFR (hyperaemia) 0.78 0.91 0.81 0.90 0.72
- Free TIMI frame count Steady Simplified equation cQFR FAVOR II China16 2017 Prospective online 328 0.95 0.92 0.86 0.97 0.86
Yazaki et al19 2017 Retrospective offline 151 0.89 0.89 0.77 0.95 0.80
FAVOR II Europe-Japan18 2018 Prospective online 317 0.87 0.87 0.76 0.93 0.83
FAVOR III China41 2021 RCT 3,825 Lower events at 1-year follow-up: difference –3.0% [95% CI: –4.7 to –1.4]; hazard ratio 0.65 [95% CI: 0.51 to 0.83]
WIFI II39 2018 Prospective offline 240 0.77 0.86 0.75 0.87 0.70
Free Fixed hyperaemic Steady Simplified equation fQFR Ties et al21 2018 Retrospective offline 151 0.57 0.93 0.67 0.89 0.71
TIMI frame count Steady Simplified equation cQFR 0.67 0.96 0.82 0.92 0.70
Free Fixed hyperaemic Steady Simplified equation fQFR Koltowski et al20 2018 Retrospective offline 306 0.90 0.63 0.64 0.89 0.72
TIMI frame count Steady Simplified equation vQFR (vessel cQFR) 0.91 0.70 0.69 0.91 0.78
iQFR (lesion cQFR) 0.49 0.97 0.91 0.72 0.70
iQFR (index cQFR) 0.84 0.87 0.82 0.88 0.85
Free TIMI frame count Steady Simplified equation cQFR Mejía-Rentería et al22 2018 Retrospective offline 300 0.89 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.83
Free Fixed hyperaemic Steady Simplified equation fQFR Emori et al25* 2018 Retrospective offline 75 0.94 0.62 0.69 0.92 0.84
TIMI frame count Steady Simplified equation cQFR 0.92 0.82 0.83 0.91 0.88
Free TIMI frame count Steady Simplified equation cQFR Emori et al23 2018 Retrospective offline 100 0.97 0.87 0.94 0.93 0.89
Spitaleri et al36** 2018 Prospective offline 45 0.88 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.90
Smit et al29*** 2018 Retrospective offline 82 0.71 0.95 0.85 0.89 0.74
Free TIMI frame count Steady Simplified equation cQFR Smit et al24 2019 Retrospective offline 334 0.70 0.92 0.77 0.89 0.81
Stähli et al26 2019 Prospective offline 516 0.75 0.98 0.89 0.94 0.82
Hwang et al27 2019 Retrospective offline 358 0.92 0.90 0.86 0.95 0.86
Tanigaki et al37 2019 Retrospective offline 233 0.90 0.82 0.81 0.90 0.78
Lauri et al31 2019 Retrospective offline 159 0.86 0.80 0.78 0.87 0.75
Asano et al35 2019 Retrospective offline 310 0.74 0.74 0.86 0.57 -
Rubimura et al30**** 2019 Retrospective offline 93 - - - - 0.79
COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE FFRangio ICA (2 views) Measured mean aortic pressure Resistance lumped model Derived from healthy artery cross section + heart rate Steady CFD - Kornowski et al45 2016 Prospective offline 101 0.97 0.93 0.88 0.95 0.97
Tröbs et al57 2016 Retrospective offline 113 0.79 0.94 0.85 0.92 0.85
ICA (3 views) Mean aortic pressure measured at hyperaemia Resistance lumped model Derived from 3D geometry and scaling Steady Fluid equation - Pellicano et al46 2017 Prospective offline 203 0.91 0.93 0.88 0.95 0.96
FAST-FFR47 2019 Retrospective offline 319 0.94 0.91 0.89 0.95 0.80
Omori et al58 2019 Prospective online 118 0.92 0.92 - - 0.83
vFFR Rotational ICA + 3D reconstruction Measured aortic pulsatile waveform Resistance lumped model - Pulsatile CFD vFFR transient CFD VIRTU-155 2013 Prospective offline 35 0.86 1 1 0.97 0.84
Measured aortic pulsatile waveform Resistance lumped model - Pulsatile CFD + fluid equation vFFR pseudotransient steady state VIRTU-Fast56 2017 Prospective offline 73 1 1 1 1 1
Measured mean aortic pressure Resistance lumped model - Steady CFD + fluid equation vFFR steady state 1 1 1 1 1
CAAS vFFR ICA 3D-QCA Measured mean aortic pressure at hyperaemia Free Derived from patient aortic pressure + 3D sizing Steady Fluid equation - FAST49 2019 Retrospective offline 319 - - - - 0.89
FASTII50 2021 Prospective observational 330 - - - - -
FFRCT CTA Lumped heart model Resistance lumped model - Pulsatile/steady CFD/simplified equations - DISCOVER-FLOW64 2011 Prospective offsite 159 0.88 0.82 0.74 0.92 0.72
DeFACTO65 2012 Prospective offsite 407 0.90 0.54 0.67 0.84 0.63
HFNXT66 2014 Prospective onsite 484 0.84 0.86 0.61 0.95 0.82
NOT COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE caFFR ICA (2 views) Measured mean aortic pressure Free TIMI frame count Steady CFD - Flash FFR51 2019 Prospective online 328 0.90 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.89
vFAI ICA 3D-QCA Average human aortic pressure (100 mmHg) Free Fixed Steady CFD Derived from DP-flow curve Papafaklis et al54 2014 Retrospective offline 139 0.90 0.86 0.80 0.94 0.78
FFRQCA ICA 3D-QCA Measured mean aortic pressure Free TIMI frame count Steady CFD Need of hyperaemia Tu et al59 2014 Retrospective offline 80 0.78 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.81
*Postmyocardial infarction patients. **Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction from ARYOSTO. ***Patients with diabetes. ****Pre-percutaneous coronary intervention. 3D: three-dimensional; aQFR: adenosine-flow QFR; CAAS vFFR: vessel FFR; caFFR: computational pressure-flow dynamics derived FFR; CFD: computational fluid dynamics; cQFR: contrast-flow QFR; CTA: computed tomography angiography; DP: differential pressure; FFR: fractional flow reserve; FFRangio: angiography-derived FFR; FFRCT: coronary computed tomography-derived FFR; fixed-flow QFR; ICA: invasive coronary angiography; NPV: negative predictive value; PPV: positive predictive value; ps-trans: vFFR computed with the pseudotransient steady-state method; QCA: quantitative coronary analysis; QFR: quantitative flow ratio; TIMI: Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction; trans: vFFR computed with full transient CFD; vFAI: virtual functional assessment index; vFFR: virtual FFR

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR)

QFR (QAngio XA 3D; Medis Medical Imaging Systems, and AngioPlus; Pulse Medical Imaging Technology) is an FFR computational method derived from 3D-QCA based on two orthogonal angiographic projections of the coronary vessel, usually separated by at least 25 degrees17. Once the vessel is reconstructed into a 3D model, the haemodynamic pressure drops are calculated at consecutive segments according to derived friction and turbulence pressure coefficients, and subsequently integrated into the whole analysed segment (Figure 3). According to the type of flow value used for its calculation, QFR can be expressed in three different modes: 1) fixed-flow (fQFR) that uses a fixed value of population-averaged hyperaemic flow of 0.35 m/s, 2) contrast-flow (cQFR) that estimates flow velocity based on TIMI frame count, or 3) adenosine-flow (aQFR) that measures flow from hyperaemic coronary angiograms obtained during adenosine administration18. Most studies validating QFR utilised the cQFR method, which offers the best balance between diagnostic yield and technical ease of use17.

Prior studies have shown a good correlation between QFR and FFR values in angiographically intermediate lesions, with a good diagnostic accuracy of QFR for assessing functional stenosis severity192021222324252627282930313233343536373839 (Table 1). Two prospective, multicentre studies (Angiographic quantitative flow ratio-guided coronary intervention - FAVOR II China and FAVOR II Europe-Japan) have reported good diagnostic accuracies of QFR both at patient and vessel levels16 and better sensitivity and specificity than 2D-QCA in assessing functional stenosis relevance18. In a patient-level meta-analysis of 16 high-quality studies comparing FFR and QFR, QFR demonstrated good positive and excellent negative predictive values in ascertaining the functional relevance of coronary stenoses with a cut-off FFR of ≤0.8040.

Of note, QFR is the only functional angiographic system in which the clinical value has been tested in the setting of a randomised clinical trial. The FAVOR III China Study randomised 3,825 patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes, with at least one lesion with a diameter stenosis of 50-90% on angiography, to a QFR-guided strategy (PCI indicated if QFR ≤0.80) or a standard angiography-guided strategy.

After 1 year of follow-up, patients randomised to the QFR-guided strategy had fewer myocardial infarctions and ischaemia-driven revascularisations (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.83; p=0.0004)41. Moreover, the recently published 2-year follow-up analysis showed that QFR-guided patients had better outcomes in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.54-0.81; p<0.0001)42. The FAVOR III Europe Japan Study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03729739) will assess 1-year clinical outcomes comparing a QFR-based strategy to a strategy of pressure wire-based FFR.

Several studies have shown that QFR values correlate better with FFR than with non-hyperaemic pressure ratios (NHPR)43. This may be due to the fact that, compared with FFR, NHPR are more sensitive to friction losses of intracoronary pressure44 which, as discussed above, may be more difficult to identify with FCA. As a matter of fact, a significant difference in the correlation between both invasive indices and QFR has been shown to occur only in vessels with a diffuse pattern of disease, as assessed with guidewire-based longitudinal vessel interrogation43.

Figure 3. Contrast QFR for the left anterior descending artery. Coronary angiography showed an intermediate lesion in mid-left anterior descending artery. Contrast QFR in the same vessel was positive for significant functional ischaemia (0.70). Virtual angioplasty in a small segment (between the green markers) showed an expected final QFR of 0.84 after stenting. MLD: minimum lumen diameter; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; QFR: quantitative flow ratio; %D: % diameter

Coronary angiography-derived FFR

Coronary angiography-derived FFR (FFRangio; FFRangio System; CathWorks Ltd.) involves the creation of a 3D representation of the entire coronary arterial tree, using at least three single-plane angiographic projections, and estimates flow through a stenosis by solving simplified fluid equations4546. The microcirculatory resistance is estimated based on scaling formulas. The expected hyperaemic flow is estimated through the calculated microcirculation resistance and the total volume and length of the reconstructed coronary arterial system. The FFRangio is then obtained by dividing the expected hyperaemic flow rate in the stenotic artery with the hyperaemic flow rate calculated for a healthy artery (Supplementary Figure 1). Some advantages of FFRangio, compared with other invasive physiological systems, include the possibility of assessing the entire coronary vessel tree, including side branches, in a single analysis, without the need of intravenous nitrate administration.

After smaller prospective offline studies validated and reported a good diagnostic accuracy of FFRangio4546, the multicentre FFRangio Accuracy vs. Standard FFR (FAST-FFR) Trial prospectively enrolled 301 patients and reported an excellent per-vessel sensitivity (94%) and specificity (91%), with invasive FFR as the reference. Interestingly, even for “grey zone” FFR values (0.75-0.85), the diagnostic accuracy was high (87%)47.

The clinical value of FFRangio has recently been announced in a cohort of 518 patients. The cumulative incidence of death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularisation after 2 years of follow-up was 3.6% in patients with an FFRangio-guided deferred strategy and 6.7% in patients treated with PCI48.

Vessel fractional flow reserve

Vessel fractional flow reserve (CAAS vFFR; Pie Medical Imaging) is calculated using 3D-QCA and simplified fluid equations. The inlet is determined by the aortic root pressure in hyperaemia, and flow velocity is derived by applying the measured pressure to the reconstructed 3D coronary geometry (Supplementary Figure 2). Based on the good linear correlation with wire-derived FFR in the Fast Assessment of STenosis severity (FAST) study49, the CAAS vFFR system was the first invasive angiography-based physiology system to obtain U.S. Food and Drug Administration market clearance. The recently reported FASTII trial results showed that CAAS vFFR has a high diagnostic accuracy to detect FFR ≤0.8050. The ongoing FAST III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04931771) will address its prognostic impact compared with FFR.

Computational pressure-flow dynamics derived FFR

Computational pressure-flow dynamics derived FFR (caFFR; FlashAngio caFFR System; RainMed Ltd.) uses 3D angiographic reconstructions based on two orthogonal views, which are subsequently merged with computational fluid dynamics (Supplementary Figure 3). Patient-specific aortic pressure, applied at the inlet boundary, and resting flow velocities, determined by the TIMI frame count method, are integrated into the calculations to solve the Navier-Stokes equations51. In the Accuracy of Computational Pressure-Fluid Dynamics applied to Coronary Angiography to Derive Fractional Flow Reserve (Flash FFR) Study, caFFR demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for the identification of functionally significant lesions, with wire-based FFR as the reference51.

Murray law-based QFR

Recently, a new approach to quantify functional stenosis severity from a single angiographic view has been proposed (Supplementary Figure 4). With the support of artificial intelligence algorithms, the Murray law-based QFR (μQFR) enables FFR estimation with a single, good quality angiographic projection, adjusting both the reference vessel diameter and the outgoing flow through side branches according to fractal geometry rules. After reporting an excellent agreement between μQFR and FFR in a post hoc analysis of the FAVOR II China study52, Tu et al demonstrated an almost perfect agreement with 3D-QFR in a small cohort53.

Other systems for functional assessment of coronary stenoses based on invasive angiography

In addition to the commercially available indices discussed above, other systems have also been reported.

The Virtual Functional Assessment Index (vFAI) uses 3D-QCA technology and CFD equations54. Average aortic pressure is applied at the inlet boundary. Blood flow is calculated by simulating pressures at 1 and 3 ml/s (average flow at rest and in hyperaemic conditions in human coronary arteries). Unlike the other systems described previously, virtual FFR (vFFR; Philips) is based upon rotational coronary angiography (RoCA; Philips)55. The system uses a CFD analysis in which aortic pressure waveforms are measured and applied at the inlet boundary, and the outlet boundary is derived by coupling a model of microcirculation. A simplified version of vFFR using steady-state CFD and simplified fluid dynamics equations has been described56.

Angiographic FFR (AngioFFR) uses CFD Simulation software (Siemens) and performs calculations using two angiographic projections of the coronary vessel, patient-specific heart rate and blood pressure; it is supported by artificial intelligence algorithms57. In a study including 253 lesions (200 patients), AngioFFR resulted in a good overall sensitivity and specificity, with a shorter processing time than invasive FFR58.

Tu et al developed an angiographic index from 3D quantitative coronary angiography and TIMI frame count (FFRQCA) with an overall good discrimination capacity to predict FFR ≤0.8059.

Limitations of angiography-derived FFR

Technical issues

Current versions of most angiography-derived techniques are highly operator dependent and require multiple steps (manual indication of landmarks, correction of vessel contours and indication of the target vessel start and endpoints, which account for significant interobserver variation in non-trial settings40. As accuracy depends directly on the quality of images and optimal projections, overlapped or highly tortuous vessels cannot be correctly evaluated.

In systems in which TIMI frame count is used as an estimate of coronary flow, the quality of contrast injection might influence the accuracy of estimations. The lack of standardisation of contrast injections might account for the differences in the reported correlations with invasive FFR20. The adoption of systems requiring rotational coronary angiography is limited by the availability of angiographic hardware with this feature. Since rotational angiography provides fewer images per projection, the number of end diastolic frames available for analysis is reduced55.

Angiography-derived FFR using simplified fluid equations is reportedly less time-consuming when compared with wire-based FFR. However, the same reports did not account for the time needed and spent in acquiring the prespecified images to make the analysis possible, which is often challenging20.

Issues related to reported evidence

Most published studies had a retrospective offline design, with a limited number of patients and were not powered for hard clinical endpoints (Table 1). Currently, only QFR have published data demonstrating improved outcomes from randomised controlled trials.

As with most clinical trials and validation studies, the number of exclusion criteria applied resulted in a highly selected population whose representability in real-world practice is somewhat hindered. This results in the exclusion of approximately 15% of screened patients (for the following reasons: aorto-ostial lesions, bifurcation lesions, presence of coronary bypass grafts, left main disease, chronic total occlusions, stent restenosis or diffuse disease) (Supplementary Table 2).

Confounding factors

Important discrepancies between FFR and QFR are found in patients with chronic kidney disease and diabetes, which might be related to the increased prevalence of microvascular dysfunction60. A recent study from MejÃa-RenterÃa et al demonstrated that microcirculatory dysfunction, defined by an index of microvascular resistance (IMR) ≥23, decreased the diagnostic performance of QFR to detect functionally significant lesions as determined by FFR. Nevertheless, QFR was still superior to angiography alone in ascertaining functional stenosis severity22. Hwang et al demonstrated discordance between QFR and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) when considering abnormal coronary flow reserve (CFR) values27. Additionally, Westra et al demonstrated that resting Pd/Pa and FFR functional classification disagreement is associated with a reduced diagnostic accuracy of QFR61.

Functional angiography based on coronary computed tomography

Merging CCTA with FFR by using advanced computational analysis allows a complete haemodynamic and anatomical evaluation of a coronary lesion in one single non-invasive test, improving clinical outcomes, although without significantly reducing costs62.

Coronary computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve

In the last decade, CCTA has been shown to be a highly accurate and non-invasive method for the evaluation of CAD and the assessment of plaque. Coronary computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFRCT; HeartFlow FFRCT Analysis; HeartFlow) is based on the application of CFD methods to solve the Navier-Stokes equations to simulate flow, pressure and velocity during rest and hyperaemia (Figure 4).

Contrary to FCA based on invasive angiograms, a full CFD analysis is performed using a supercomputer. The coronary 3D modelling is obtained by conventional CCTA and the patient-specific boundary conditions are determined as lumped models for the heart (time varying elastance model – inlet) and coronary microcirculation (outlet). Recently, reduced-order and steady-state models have been introduced to compensate for the limitations of supercomputer dependence and offsite calculation, averaging the Navier-Stokes equations over vessel cross-sections. Machine learning models have also recently materialised utilising artificial intelligence algorithms to calculate stenosis severity based on a multilayer neural network architecture and offline training63.

A number of prospective studies have been conducted to validate FFRCT using wire-based FFR as the gold standard reference. The Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve (DISCOVER-FLOW) study found good correlation between FFRCT and FFR and a higher diagnostic performance of FFRCT compared to CCTA alone64. Similar results were found in the Determination of Fractional Flow Reserve by Anatomic Computed Tomographic Angiography (DeFACTO) study65.

The Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography (HTNXT) study scheduled high-quality CCTA (beta blocker and nitroglycerine administration) prior to ICA, and used a refined FFRCT algorithm which resulted in considerable enhancement of diagnostic accuracy on a per-patient and per-lesion basis for FFRCT, compared with CCTA alone, and subsequently higher specificity with comparable sensitivity66.

The Prospective LongitudinAl Trial of FFTCT: Outcome and Resource Impacts (PLATFORM) Study prospectively randomised 584 patients with a planned ICA to receive usual care testing or CCTA/FFRCT. The results showed that 61% of ICA procedures were deferred after receiving the CCTA/FFRCT results, with low rates of clinical events at 90 days in both arms67. The 1-year outcome data from this trial showed that care guided by the CCTA/FFRCT was associated with lower costs but equivalent quality of life and clinical outcomes68.

Finally, the Assessing Diagnostic Value of Non-invasive FFRCT in Coronary CarE (ADVANCE) registry prospectively enrolled 5,083 patients with coronary atherosclerosis identified on CCTA to evaluate the clinical significance of functionally significant stenosis with FFRCT. Revascularisation and MACE events occurred more frequently in patients with an FFRCT ≤0.80, than with patients with an FFRCT>0.80 (risk ratio [RR] 6.87; 95% CI: 5.59-8.45; p<0.001 and RR: 1.81; 95% CI: 0.96-3.43; p=0.06, respectively)69.

Figure 4. Coronary computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve. A) CCTA of the LAD artery is shown. Arrowhead indicates a calcified plaque in the middle segment with 50% diameter stenosis. B) A quantitative 3D colour-coded anatomical model is generated. C) FFRCT is calculated throughout the coronary tree. The FFRCT value of 0.63 in the distal LAD artery suggests the presence of a functionally significant stenosis after the emergence of the first diagonal branch. Courtesy of Dr Joo Myung Lee. CCTA: coronary computed tomography angiography; FFR: fractional flow reserve; FFRCT: coronary computed tomography-derived FFR; LAD: left anterior descending

Limitations of computed tomography-derived FFR

Technical issues

Currently, FFRCT is time-consuming and analysed offsite. Furthermore, the accuracy of FFRCT is dependent upon a high-quality CCTA, which requires new-generation CT scans that are not always readily available. The analysis is also strictly dependent on the absence of artefacts (motion, intracoronary stents, pacemakers, internal defibrillators, prosthetic heart valves, excessive coronary calcification, uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias or frequent ventricular ectopic beats), resulting in significant dataset rejection in the validation studies (11-33%) due to poor image quality646566. Limited information is available on whether FFRCT is cost-effective.

Issues related to reported evidence

As previously described for the angiography-derived FFR techniques, the application of FFRCT analysis is not available for all patients. According to the proprietary company specifications, FFRCT is currently not recommended for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or recent myocardial infarction (MI), prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), complex congenital heart disease, body mass index >35 kg/m2 or haemodynamic instability.

In the ADVANCE registry, baseline medications were not reported and optimised medical therapy was not considered in the core lab recommendations. Therefore, the primary outcome results do not reflect current recommended practice by international guidelines69. Furthermore, based on the presented studies, FFRCT was validated in a particular low-risk subgroup of patients and the performance of FFRCT in intermediate- or high-risk populations is currently unknown70. Importantly, neither core lab readers nor site investigators were blinded to the study aims, creating an opportunity for potential information bias on post-CCTA management by both entities69.

Clinical scenarios for functional coronary angiography

In Figure 5, we propose a decision-making algorithm for the use of FCA in everyday practice. It should be kept in mind that most of the validation studies discussed have been performed in patients with chronic coronary syndromes and intermediate coronary stenoses located in a major coronary branch. However, many researchers have explored the value of FCA in other relevant clinical and anatomical scenarios. These are discussed in greater detail below.

Figure 5. Utilisation of FCA in clinical practice. Decision-making algorithm for the usage of FCA in pre- and post-PCI settings. CCTA: coronary computed tomography angiography; FCA: functional coronary angiography; FFRCT: computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve; LM: left main; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; TIMI: Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction

Non-culprit vessel evaluation in acute coronary syndromes

Approximately half of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multivessel disease with non-culprit lesions (NCL)71. Repeated invasive tests are associated with increased risk, cost, and time, especially in non-functionally significant NCL. The ability to estimate the functional relevance of NCL offline after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) could greatly facilitate the management of these patients and optimise the catheterisation laboratory workflow.

Overall, the available evidence is concordant and supports the value of QFR for this indication. Lauri et al published a retrospective, observational, multicentre study demonstrating that QFR has excellent diagnostic accuracy when assessing the functional relevance of NCL during primary PCI31. Sejr-Hanse et al performed a post hoc analysis of the Intravascular Ultrasound Guided PCI in STEMI (iSTEMI) study and demonstrated that acute phase QFR has a very good diagnostic performance with staged FFR as reference33. Finally, Spitaleri et al, in a proof-of-concept study performed in patients with STEMI with NCL, found excellent correlation and agreement between QFR and FFR values in acute and subacute procedures. They also found that a QFR value ≤0.80 was associated with a higher risk of adverse events (HR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.2-4.5; p=0.01)36.

Choi et al, in a multicentre retrospective registry, identified that QFR consistently showed high diagnostic performance in predicting the functional significance of epicardial coronary stenosis, regardless of vessel location, lesion length, or various clinical presentations including ACS with NCL (n=153), previous MI (n=30), or diabetes mellitus (n=190)38.

Erbay et al studied the prognostic impact of QFR analysis in postinterventional culprit and non-culprit vessels in 792 patients with ACS. The results showed that an abnormal QFR is an independent predictor of 2-year MACE in both non-culprit arteries (odds ratio [OR] 3.78, 95% CI: 2.21-6.45; p<0.001) and post-PCI culprit arteries (OR 3.60, 95% CI: 2.09-6.20; p<0.001)72.

Duguay et al retrospectively investigated the prognostic value of FFRCT based on machine learning in patients with ACS and multivessel disease in 48 patients. Receiver operating characteristics including the framing risk score (FRS), the Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) classification and FFRCT showed a discriminatory power superior to the FRS alone for the prediction of MACE (area under the curve [AUC] 0.66; p=0.032)73.

Thus, for the time being, FCA has the potential to deliver equivalent measurements to FFR in non-culprit lesions in the context of ACS. It has to be kept in mind that the value of FFR in this context is a matter of current debate, with discordant results in trials74. The existence of time-dependent changes in microcirculatory status, or higher prevalence of vulnerable lesions, have been proposed to explain why recent trials failed in demonstrating the value of FFR in decision-making in this context75. Further research will show whether in this context QFR mirrors FFR-linked outcomes or, alternatively, if FCA has any advantages.

In the setting of non-functionally significant lesions, intravascular imaging such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) is the gold standard for the detection of vulnerable plaques. However, by measuring CT attenuation in Hounsfield units, CCTA can detect plaque composition with similar accuracy. Plaques with high CT attenuation correspond to calcified lesions, whilst low-attenuation plaques correspond to the existence of time-dependent changes in high-risk lipid-rich lesions on virtual histography IVUS76. In addition, the pattern of CT attenuation can also be used to detect plaque vulnerability. The presence of the “napkin-ring” sign in CCTA is associated with thin-cap fibroatheromas in OCT. Furthermore, Otsuka et al demonstrated this sign is an independent strong predictor of future ischaemic events at 2-year follow-up, including cardiac death, myocardial infarction and unstable angina (HR 5.55, 95% CI: 2.10-14.7; p<0.001)77.

Hybrid approach of QFR/FFR in clinical decision-making

A strategy based on primary QFR-FFR, using FFR only when QFR values are in the “grey zone” could reduce procedural time, associated costs, and complications. Lauri et al reported that using a hybrid QFR-FFR approach − primarily using QFR if values are <0.75 or>0.85, and FFR only when QFR values were within these boundaries − would result in an overall classification agreement of 96.7% in post-ACS NCL31. Compared to the iFR/FFR strategy, validated in the ADVISE II registry78, the main advantage of the reported QFR/FFR approach is the avoidance of unnecessary pressure wire evaluation, avoiding repeated diagnostic procedures in 58.5% of patients31.

Planning percutaneous coronary revascularisation

In addition to identifying flow-limiting disease, FFRCT might prove useful in guiding and planning coronary revascularisation. Jensen et al recently confirmed an increase in the PCI/ICA ratio in the high-risk population, with more ICA cancelled on the basis of FFRCT79. This study introduces the possibility of decision-making during PCI without the need to confirm ischaemia invasively, because of a high concordance between invasive and non-invasive measures of ischaemia. Van Belle et al also demonstrated that adding FFRCT to the strategy algorithm changes the treatment decision in one-third of lesions80. Another important aspect in PCI planning is the ability to simulate the post-PCI coronary artery, allowing the calculation of post-PCI FFRCT (Figure 6). In the original feasibility study, virtual post-PCI FFRCT demonstrated good overall correlation with invasive post-PCI FFR81. This method still has limited clinical utility, as the current computational requirements do not allow for a timely evaluation. With future developments in computation, this method could be performed online by onsite physicians, further aiding revascularisation decision-making.

Figure 6. Simulation of PCI results using FFRCT. A) CT-based functional coronary angiography showing a flow-limiting stenosis in the mid-segment of the left anterior descending artery. B) Simulation of PCI results after choosing the target segment to treat and C) expected haemodynamic results after achieving revascularisation. FFRCT: coronary computed tomography derived fractional flow reserve; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention

The value of FCA in planning interventions extends to Heart Team decisions on revascularisation of multivessel disease

By being able to provide a non-invasive functional Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus And Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score, FFRCT offers significant potential to reduce the need of ICA or invasive adjudication of ischaemia for Heart Team decisions.

The incremental value of a functional assessment of CAD, beyond solely anatomical ICA imaging, was highlighted in a study published by the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (FAME) study investigators, showing that adding FFR into the classic anatomical SYNTAX score reclassifies over 30% of patients82. The advantages of state-of-the art PCI guided by hybrid assessment with iFR and FFR in improving clinical outcomes in patients with de novo 3-vessel disease were also demonstrated in the SYNTAX II trial83.

Asano et al derived a functional SYNTAX score based on QFR (fSSQFR) by retrospectively screening and analysing all lesions interrogated by iFR/FFR in the SYNTAX II trial. According to the 2-year patient-oriented composite endpoint (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation), fSSQFR reclassified 26.1% of patients into the low-risk group (net reclassification improvement 0.32; p<0.001), and its accuracy to predict this composite endpoint was higher than that of the classic anatomical SYNTAX score (0.68 vs 0.56; p=0.002)35.

The calculation of the SYNTAX score derived from coronary CCTA (CT SYNTAX score) has been shown to have similar accuracy when compared to the one derived from ICA84. By being able to provide a non-invasive fSS, FFRCT offers significant potential to reduce the need of ICA or invasive adjudication of ischaemia. The SYNTAX III trial, which randomised patients to non-invasive and invasive adjudication of ischaemia, identified that in patients with left main or 3-vessel CAD, agreement concerning treatment choices (PCI or CABG) between coronary CCTA and ICA was high (Cohen’s kappa 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74-0.91). FFRCT also changed the treatment decision in 7% of patients85.

Despite the potential role of FCA in this setting, evidence of a clear benefit in clinical practice is lacking. In addition, the results of the FAME 3 trial showed that FFR-guided PCI was inferior to CABG in patients with 3-vessel CAD regarding death, myocardial infarction, stroke or repeat revascularisations at 1 year86. Given that all the FCA indices were validated against FFR, we do not recommend using FCA to decide the revascularisation strategy (PCI vs CABG) until further evidence is available.

In-stent restenosis

The performance of QFR in in-stent restenosis (ISR) was evaluated retrospectively in a multicentre, international, blinded study by Liontou et al, showing a reasonably high classification agreement between FFR and QFR (0.83), comparable to those reported with de novo lesions. Additionally, the reported performance of QFR to establish ISR relevance, with wire-based FFR as reference, was high (AUC 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83-0.97)87.

To date, there is no available evidence regarding the use of FFRCT in evaluating ISR. Recently published studies highlighted relevant limitations of CCTA imaging in the presence of coronary stents due to artificial lumen narrowing, ranging between 10 and 60%, being more pronounced in small diameter stents (<3 mm)88. Despite having a very high negative predictive value (NPV) for the exclusion of ISR, its positive predictive value (PPV) is markedly worse89. With the recent introduction of dual source CT scanners, there has been a significant improvement in the reported performances.

Functional evaluation in the presence of aortic stenosis

Concomitant CABG surgery is performed in approximately 40% of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement and the prevalence of significant CAD in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is greater than in surgical series, with a reported prevalence of over 60%90. However, despite being recommended by international guidelines, the safety and benefit of revascularisation in this group of patients is yet to be proven.

The prognostic impact of CAD in this setting is still unclear and PCI before TAVI has not been associated with improved hard endpoints or symptoms during follow-up91. The increased imposed afterload in this setting is responsible for a complex array of macro- and microcellular transformations that culminate in left ventricular hypertrophy, increased diastolic pressures, interstitial fibrosis, and microvascular dysfunction. These maladaptive modifications ultimately compromise the microcirculatory response to pharmacological vasodilation and, therefore, might explain the underestimation of intermediate stenosis functional significance with FFR92. Interestingly, the PercutAneous Coronary inTervention prIor to transcatheter aortic VAlve implantaTION (ACTIVATION) trial showed that coronary revascularisation in patients without angina and undergoing TAVI is not beneficial93. The role of image-based physiology will be assessed in the Quantitative Flow Ratio Guided Revascularization Strategy for Patients Undergoing Primary Valve Surgery With Comorbid Coronary Artery Disease (FAVOR4-QVAS) trial testing a QFR-guided revascularisation strategy in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. Nevertheless, the use of FFRCT is of particular interest, since currently all patients undergoing TAVI require CT prior to evaluating their suitability and procedural planning.

Functional ischaemia after PCI

Clinical outcomes regarding clinical decision-making based on non-intracoronary physiology remain to be published. Nevertheless, the prognostic value of QFR in successfully revascularised patients was investigated prospectively by Biscaglia et al in the Angio-based Fractional Flow Reserve to Predict Adverse Events After Stent Implantation (HAWKEYE) study. In this trial, a 3-fold increase in the vessel-oriented composite endpoint was identified (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation) in vessels with offline post-PCI QFR ≤0.89 (HR 2.91, 95% CI: 1.63-5.19; p<0.001), with significant differences in all three composites94. Most importantly, owing to the integrated pullback trace, QFR was able to discriminate the mechanism underlying the suboptimal functional result (Figure 7). The relevance of this field is likely to increase based on reported studies using post-PCI invasive functional assessment, which have shown worse prognosis if functionally significant obstructive disease is left untreated, even after angiographically successful PCI95.

Figure 7. Establishing the cause of suboptimal functional PCI results with QFR. The white brackets indicate the stented segment. The red arrows point to the major QFR drop during pullback. A) Focal intra-stent drop. B) Combined intra-stent focal drop and distal diffuse disease. C) Distal focal drop outside the stent. D) Diffuse disease. Courtesy of Dr Simone Biscaglia. PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; QFR: quantitative flow ratio

Microcirculatory coronary resistance

Recently, two proof-of-concept studies were conducted to test angiography-derived indices of microcirculatory resistance. De Maria et al developed and validated an angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (IMRangio) in STEMI, demonstrating good correlation between conventional IMR and IMRangio measured immediately before stenting in primary PCI96.

Tebaldi et al validated another angio-based IMR (A-IMR), using IMR as a gold standard, in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and an intermediate left anterior descending (LAD) artery lesion, showing good correlation between the two indices97.

Recently, MejÃa-RenterÃa et al developed a wire- and adenosine-free IMR (angio-IMR) that exhibited good correlation with invasive IMR and its feasibility in interpreting functional stenosis assessed by QFR (Figure 8)98.

Finally, Choi et al confirmed the prognostic value of an elevated angio-IMR calculated using computational flow and pressure simulations in two cohorts of STEMI patients that were followed up for 10 years, demonstrating that patients with an angio-IMR >40 had a significantly increased risk of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure99.

Figure 8. Derivation of coronary microvascular resistance from FCA. A) Steps and formulas for calculating the hyperaemic index of coronary microvascular resistance without the need for guidewires or hyperaemic drug administration. B) Invasive assessment of IMR by thermodilution-derived coronary flow curves. angio-IMR: wire- and adenosine- free IMR; DS: diameter stenosis; FCA: functional coronary angiography; IMR: index of microvascular resistance; IMRcorr: IMR adjusted by Young’s formula; QFR: quantitative flow ratio

Conclusions

In recent years, major technical developments in the field of coronary imaging (invasive angiography and CCTA) have made it possible to obtain functional information from a primary anatomical examination. FCA and CCTA now allow a wireless-based evaluation, with preliminary studies demonstrating good correlation with invasive FFR and overall good reproducibility and feasibility. The developments in both modalities and their clinical adoption worldwide could move FCA from the research field to clinical practice in the coming years. Issues regarding the time burden and costs, particularly with CTFFR, might hinder their broad applicability in routine clinical practice. The significant number of predetermined assumptions when computing flow by FCA are reflected in a wide “grey zone” of measurements that will still require confirmation by invasive physiology. Studies and trials are required to assess major clinical endpoints and the cost-effectiveness of FCA.

Conflict of interest statement

H.Mejía-Rentería has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Philips Healthcare. J.M.Lee received aresearch grant from Abbott Vascular and Philips/Volcano. H.Matsuo has received speaker fees from Philips, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and Zeon Medical. S.Baptista has received personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and HeartFlow. N.Gonzalo has received consultancy and speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Philips/Volcano, and Shockwave Medical. J.Escaned has received speaker and/or advisory board member fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medis, and Philips. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary data

To read the full content of this article, please download the PDF.

References

1. Marcus ML, Skorton DJ, Johnson MR, Collins SM, Harrison DG, Kerber RE. Visual estimates of percent diameter coronary stenosis: “a battered gold standard”. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;11:882-5.
2. Gould KL, Lipscomb K, Hamilton GW. Physiologic basis for assessing critical coronary stenosis. Instantaneous flow response and regional distribution during coronary hyperemia as measures of coronary flow reserve. Am J Cardiol. 1974;33:87-94.
3. Wijns W, Serruys PW, Reiber JHC, van den Brand M, Simoons ML, Kooijman CJ, Balakumaran K, Hugenholtz PG. Quantitative angiography of the left anterior descending coronary artery: Correlations with pressure gradient and results of exercise thallium scintigraphy. Circulation. 1985;71:273-9.
4. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, Van Der Voort PH, Bonnier HJRM, Bartunek J, Koolen JJ. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1703-8.
5. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van’ t Veer M, Klauss V, Manoharan G, Engstrøm T, Oldroyd KG, Ver Lee PN, MacCarthy PA, Fearon WF; FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213-24.
6. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, Barbato E, Tonino PAL, Piroth Z, Jagic N, Möbius-Winkler S, Rioufol G, Witt N, Kala P, MacCarthy P, Engström T, Oldroyd KG, Mavromatis K, Manoharan G, Verlee P, Frobert O, Curzen N, Johnson JB, Jüni P, Fearon WF; FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991-1001.
7. Smits PC, Abdel-Wahab M, Neumann FJ, Boxmade Klerk BM, Lunde K, Schotborgh CE, Piroth Z, Horak D, Wlodarczak A, Ong PJ, Hambrecht R, Angerås O, Richardt G, Omerovic E; Compare-Acute Investigators. Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Multivessel Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1234-44.
8. Götberg M, Cook CM, Sen S, Nijjer S, Escaned J, Davies JE. The Evolving Future of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:1379-402.
9. Tebaldi M, Biscaglia S, Fineschi M, Musumeci G, Marchese A, Leone AM, Rossi ML, Stefanini G, Maione A, Menozzi A, Tarantino F, Lodolini V, Gallo F, Barbato E, Tarantini G, Campo G. Evolving Routine Standards in Invasive Hemodynamic Assessment of Coronary Stenosis: The Nationwide Italian SICI-GISE Cross-Sectional ERIS Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1482-91.
10. Leone AM, Scalone G, De Maria GL, Tagliaferro F, Gardi A, Clemente F, Basile E, Cialdella P, De Caterina AR, Porto I, Aurigemma C, Burzotta F, Niccoli G, Trani C, Rebuzzi AG, Crea F. Efficacy of contrast medium induced Pd/Pa ratio in predicting functional significance of intermediate coronary artery stenosis assessed by fractional flow reserve: insights from the RINASCI study. EuroIntervention. 2015;11:421-7.
11. Gould KL, Lipscomb K. Effects of coronary stenoses on coronary flow reserve and resistance. Am J Cardiol. 1974;34:48-55.
12. Corcoran D, Hennigan B, Berry C. Fractional flow reserve: a clinical perspective. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;33:961-74.
13. Tu S, Westra J, Adjedj J, Ding D, Liang F, Xu B, Holm NR, Reiber JHC, Wijns W. Fractional flow reserve in clinical practice: from wire-based invasive measurement to image-based computation. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:3271-9.
14. Zhong L, Zhang JM, Su B, Tan RS, Allen JC, Kassab GS. Application of Patient-Specific Computational Fluid Dynamics in Coronary and Intra-Cardiac Flow Simulations: Challenges and Opportunities. Front Physiol. 2018;9:742.
15. Taylor CA, Fonte TA, Min JK. Computational fluid dynamics applied to cardiac computed tomography for noninvasive quantification of fractional flow reserve: scientific basis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2233-41.
16. Xu B, Tu S, Qiao S, Qu X, Chen Y, Yang J, Guo L, Sun Z, Li Z, Tian F, Fang W, Chen J, Li W, Guan C, Holm NR, Wijns W, Hu S. Diagnostic Accuracy of Angiography-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio Measurements for Online Assessment of Coronary Stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:3077-87.
17. Tu S, Westra J, Yang J, von Birgelen C, Ferrara A, Pellicano M, Nef H, Tebaldi M, Murasato Y, Lansky A, Barbato E, van der Heijden LC, Reiber JHC, Holm NR, Wijns W; FAVOR Pilot Trial Study Group. Diagnostic Accuracy of Fast Computational Approaches to Derive Fractional Flow Reserve From Diagnostic Coronary Angiography: The International Multicenter FAVOR Pilot Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:2024-35.
18. Westra J, Andersen BK, Campo G, Matsuo H, Koltowski L, Eftekhari A, Liu T, Di Serafino L, Di Girolamo D, Escaned J, Nef H, Naber C, Barbierato M, Tu S, Neghabat O, Madsen M, Tebaldi M, Tanigaki T, Kochman J, Somi S, Esposito G, Mercone G, Mejia-Renteria H, Ronco F, Bøtker HE, Wijns W, Christiansen EH, Holm NR. Diagnostic Performance of In-Procedure Angiography-Derived Quantitative Flow Reserve Compared to Pressure-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: The FAVOR II Europe-Japan Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e009603.
19. Yazaki K, Otsuka M, Kataoka S, Kahata M, Kumagai A, Inoue K, Koganei H, Enta K, Ishii Y. Applicability of 3-Dimensional Quantitative Coronary Angiography-Derived Computed Fractional Flow Reserve for Intermediate Coronary Stenosis. Circ J. 2017;81:988-92.
20. Kołtowski Ł, Zaleska M, Maksym J, Tomaniak M, Soliński M, Puchta D, Holm NR, Opolski G, Kochman J. Quantitative flow ratio derived from diagnostic coronary angiography in assessment of patients with intermediate coronary stenosis: a wire-free fractional flow reserve study. Clin Res Cardiol. 2018;107:858-67.
21. Ties D, van Dijk R, Pundziute G, Lipsic E, Vonck TE, van den Heuvel AFM, Vliegenthart R, Oudkerk M, van der Harst P. Computational quantitative flow ratio to assess functional severity of coronary artery stenosis. Int J Cardiol. 2018;271:36-41.
22. Mejía-Rentería H, Lee JM, Lauri F, van der Hoeven NW, de Waard GA, Macaya F, Pérez-Vizcayno MJ, Gonzalo N, Jiménez-Quevedo P, Nombela-Franco L, Salinas P, Núñez-Gil I, del Trigo M, Goto S, Lee HJ, Liontou C, Fernández-Ortiz A, Macaya C, van Royen N, Koo BK, Escaned J. Influence of Microcirculatory Dysfunction on Angiography-Based Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenoses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:741-53.
23. Emori H, Kubo T, Kameyama T, Ino Y, Matsuo Y, Kitabata H, Terada K, Katayama Y, Aoki H, Taruya A, Shimamura K, Ota S, Tanaka A, Hozumi T, Akasaka T. Diagnostic Accuracy of Quantitative Flow Ratio for Assessing Myocardial Ischemia in Prior Myocardial Infarction. Circ J. 2018;82:807-14.
24. Smit JM, Koning G, van Rosendael AR, Dibbets-Schneider P, Mertens BJ, Jukema JW, Delgado V, Reiber JHC, Bax JJ, Scholte AJ. Relationship Between Coronary Contrast-Flow Quantitative Flow Ratio and Myocardial Ischemia Assessed by SPECT MPI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1888-96.
25. Emori H, Kubo T, Kameyama T, Ino Y, Matsuo Y, Kitabata H, Terada K, Katayama Y, Taruya A, Shimamura K, Shiono Y, Tanaka A, Hozumi T, Akasaka T. Quantitative flow ratio and instantaneous wave-free ratio for the assessment of the functional severity of intermediate coronary artery stenosis. Coron Artery Dis. 2018;29:611-7.
26. Stähli BE, Erbay A, Steiner J, Klotsche J, Mochmann HC, Skurk C, Lauten A, Landmesser U, Leistner DM. Comparison of resting distal to aortic coronary pressure with angiography-based quantitative flow ratio. Int J Cardiol. 2019;279:12-7.
27. Hwang D, Choi KH, Lee JM, Mejía-Rentería H, Kim J, Park J, Rhee TM, Jeon KH, Lee HJ, Kim HK, Park TK, Yang JH, Song Y Bin, Shin ES, Nam CW, Kwak JJ, Doh JH, Hahn JY, Choi JH, Choi SH, Escaned J, Koo BK, Gwon HC. Diagnostic Agreement of Quantitative Flow Ratio With Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e011605.
28. Huang J, Emori H, Ding D, Kubo T, Yu W, Huang P, Zhang S, Gutiérrez-Chico JL, Akasaka T, Wijns W, Tu S. Comparison of diagnostic performance of intracoronary optical coherence tomography-based versus angiography-based fractional flow reserve for the evaluation of coronary lesions. EuroIntervention. 2020;16:568-76.
29. Smit JM, Koning G, van Rosendael AR, El Mahdiui M, Mertens BJ, Schalij MJ, Jukema JW, Delgado V, Reiber JHC, Bax JJ, Scholte AJ. Referral of patients for fractional flow reserve using quantitative flow ratio. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;20:1231-8.
30. Rubimbura V, Guillon B, Fournier S, Amabile N, Chi Pan C, Combaret N, Eeckhout E, Kibler M, Silvain J, Wijns W, Schiele F, Muller O, Meneveau N, Adjedj J. Quantitative flow ratio virtual stenting and post stenting correlations to post stenting fractional flow reserve measurements from the DOCTORS (Does Optical Coherence Tomography Optimize Results of Stenting) study population. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96:1145-53.
31. Lauri F, Macaya F, Mejía-Rentería H, Goto S, Yeoh J, Nakayama M, Quirós A, Liontou C, Pareek N, Fernández-Ortíz A, Macaya C, MacCarthy P, Escaned J; Collaborators. Angiography-derived functional assessment of non-culprit coronary stenoses in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention. 2020;15:e1594-601.
32. Watarai M, Otsuka M, Yazaki K, Inagaki Y, Kahata M, Kumagai A, Inoue K, Koganei H, Enta K, Ishii Y. Applicability of quantitative flow ratio for rapid evaluation of intermediate coronary stenosis: comparison with instantaneous wave-free ratio in clinical practice. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;35:1963-9.
33. Sejr-Hansen M, Westra J, Thim T, Christiansen EH, Eftekhari A, Kristensen SD, Jakobsen L, Götberg M, Frøbert O, van der Hoeven NW, Holm NR, Maeng M. Quantitative flow ratio for immediate assessment of nonculprit lesions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-An iSTEMI substudy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;94:686-92.
34. Smit JM, El Mahdiui M, van Rosendael AR, Jukema JW, Koning G, Reiber JHC, Bax JJ, Scholte AJ. Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Quantitative Flow Ratio in Patients With Versus Without Diabetes Mellitus. Am J Cardiol. 2019;123:1722-8.
35. Asano T, Katagiri Y, Chang CC, Kogame N, Chichareon P, Takahashi K, Modolo R, Tenekecioglu E, Collet C, Jonker H, Appleby C, Zaman A, van Mieghem N, Uren N, Zueco J, Piek JJ, Reiber JHC, Farooq V, Escaned J, Banning AP, Serruys PW, Onuma Y. Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve in the SYNTAX II Trial: Feasibility, Diagnostic Performance of Quantitative Flow Ratio, and Clinical Prognostic Value of Functional SYNTAX Score Derived From Quantitative Flow Ratio in Patients With 3-Vessel Disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:259-70.
36. Spitaleri G, Tebaldi M, Biscaglia S, Westra J, Brugaletta S, Erriquez A, Passarini G, Brieda A, Leone AM, Picchi A, Ielasi A, Di Girolamo D, Trani C, Ferrari R, Reiber JHC, Valgimigli M, Sabatè M, Campo G. Quantitative Flow Ratio Identifies Nonculprit Coronary Lesions Requiring Revascularization in Patients with ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:e006023.
37. Tanigaki T, Emori H, Kawase Y, Kubo T, Omori H, Shiono Y, Sobue Y, Shimamura K, Hirata T, Matsuo Y, Ota H, Kitabata H, Okubo M, Ino Y, Matsuo H, Akasaka T. QFR Versus FFR Derived From Computed Tomography for Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:2050-9.
38. Choi KH, Lee SH, Lee JM, Hwang D, Zhang J, Kim J, Im SY, Kim HK, Nam CW, Doh JH, Shin ES, Mejía-Rentería H, Park TK, Yang JH, Song Y Bin, Hahn JY, Choi SH, Gwon HC, Escaned J, Koo BK. Clinical relevance and prognostic implications of contrast quantitative flow ratio in patients with coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiol. 2021;325:23-9.
39. Westra J, Tu S, Winther S, Nissen L, Vestergaard MB, Andersen BK, Holck EN, Fox Maule C, Johansen JK, Andreasen LN, Simonsen JK, Zhang Y, Kristensen SD, Maeng M, Kaltoft A, Terkelsen CJ, Krusell LR, Jakobsen L, Reiber JHC, Lassen JF, Bøttcher M, Bøtker HE, Christiansen EH, Holm NR. Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stenosis by Quantitative Flow Ratio During Invasive Coronary Angiography: The WIFI II Study (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II). Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11:e007107.
40. Westra J, Tu S, Campo G, Qiao S, Matsuo H, Qu X, Koltowski L, Chang Y, Liu T, Yang J, Andersen BK, Eftekhari A, Christiansen EH, Escaned J, Wijns W, Xu B, Holm NR. Diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio in prospectively enrolled patients: An individual patient-data meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;94:693-701.
41. Xu B, Tu S, Song L, Jin Z, Yu B, Fu G, Zhou Y, Wang J, Chen Y, Pu J, Chen L, Qu X, Yang J, Liu X, Guo L, Shen C, Zhang Y, Zhang Q, Pan H, Fu X, Liu J, Zhao Y, Escaned J, Wang Y, Fearon WF, Dou K, Kirtane AJ, Wu Y, Serruys PW, Yang W, Wijns W, Guan C, Leon MB, Qiao S, Stone GW; FAVOR III China study group. Angiographic quantitative flow ratio-guided coronary intervention (FAVOR III China): a multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial. Lancet. 2021;398:2149-59.
42. Song L, Xu B, Tu S, Guan C, Jin Z, Yu B, Fu G, Zhou Y, Wang J, Chen Y, Pu J, Chen L, Qu X, Yang J, Liu X, Guo L, Shen C, Zhang Y, Zhang Q, Pan H, Zhang R, Liu J, Zhao Y, Wang Y, Dou K, Kirtane AJ, Wu Y, Wijns W, Yang W, Leon MB, Qiao S, Stone GW; FAVOR III China Study Group. 2-Year Outcomes of Angiographic Quantitative Flow Ratio-Guided Coronary Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;80:2089-101.
43. Wienemann H, Ameskamp C, Mejía-Rentería H, Mauri V, Hohmann C, Baldus S, Adam M, Escaned J, Halbach M. Diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve and resting full-cycle ratio in intermediate coronary lesions. Int J Cardiol. 2022;362:59-67.
44. Warisawa T, Cook CM, Howard JP, Ahmad Y, Doi S, Nakayama M, Goto S, Yakuta Y, Karube K, Shun-Shin MJ, Petraco R, Sen S, Nijjer S, Al Lamee R, Ishibashi Y, Matsuda H, Escaned J, di Mario C, Francis DP, Akashi YJ, Davies JE. Physiological Pattern of Disease Assessed by Pressure-Wire Pullback Has an Influence on Fractional Flow Reserve/Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Discordance. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:e007494.
45. Kornowski R, Lavi I, Pellicano M, Xaplanteris P, Vaknin-Assa H, Assali A, Valtzer O, Lotringer Y, De Bruyne B. Fractional Flow Reserve Derived From Routine Coronary Angiograms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:2235-7.
46. Pellicano M, Lavi I, De Bruyne B, Vaknin-Assa H, Assali A, Valtzer O, Lotringer Y, Weisz G, Almagor Y, Xaplanteris P, Kirtane AJ, Codner P, Leon MB, Kornowski R. Validation Study of Image-Based Fractional Flow Reserve During Coronary Angiography. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e005259.
47. Fearon WF, Achenbach S, Engstrom T, Assali A, Shlofmitz R, Jeremias A, Fournier S, Kirtane AJ, Kornowski R, Greenberg G, Jubeh R, Kolansky DM, McAndrew T, Dressler O, Maehara A, Matsumura M, Leon MB, De Bruyne B; FAST-FFR Study Investigators. Accuracy of Fractional Flow Reserve Derived From Coronary Angiography. Circulation. 2019;139:477-84.
48. Witberg G, Bental T, Levi A, Talmor-Barkan Y, Rotholz A, Tanigaki T, Nakayama M, Omori H, Itakura R, Kawase Y, Matsuo H, Kornowski R. Clinical Outcomes of FFRangio-Guided Treatment for Coronary Artery Disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15:468-70.
49. Masdjedi K, van Zandvoort LJC, Balbi MM, Gijsen FJH, Ligthart JMR, Rutten MCM, Lemmert ME, Wilschut J, Diletti R, de Jaegere P, Zijlstra F, Van Mieghem NM, Daemen J. Validation of three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography-based software to calculate fractional flow reserve: the FAST study. EuroIntervention. 2020;16:591-9.
50. Masdjedi K, Tanaka N, Van Belle E, Porouchani S, Linke A, Woitek FJ, Bartorelli AL, Ali ZA, den Dekker WK, Wilschut JM, Diletti R, Zijlstra F, Boersma E, Van Mieghem NM, Spitzer E, Daemen J. Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) for the assessment of stenosis severity: the FAST II study. EuroIntervention. 2022;17:1498-505.
51. Li J, Gong Y, Wang W, Yang Q, Liu B, Lu Y, Xu Y, Huo Y, Yi T, Liu J, Li Y, Xu S, Zhao L, Ali ZA, Huo Y. Accuracy of computational pressure-fluid dynamics applied to coronary angiography to derive fractional flow reserve: FLASH FFR. Cardiovasc Res. 2020;116:1349-56.
52. Tu S, Ding D, Chang Y, Li C, Wijns W, Xu B. Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio for assessment of coronary stenosis significance from a single angiographic view: A novel method based on bifurcation fractal law. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97 Suppl 2:1040-7.
53. Cortés C, Liu L, Berdin SL, Fernández-Corredoira PM, Zhang R, Schäfer U, López M, Diarte JA, Tu S, Gutiérrez-Chico JL. Agreement between Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μQFR) and three-dimensional quantitative flow ratio (3D-QFR) in non-selected angiographic stenosis: A multicenter study. Cardiol J. 2022;29:388-95.
54. Papafaklis MI, Muramatsu T, Ishibashi Y, Lakkas LS, Nakatani S, Bourantas CV, Ligthart J, Onuma Y, Echavarria-Pinto M, Tsirka G, Kotsia A, Nikas DN, Mogabgab O, van Geuns RJ, Naka KK, Fotiadis DI, Brilakis ES, Garcia-Garcia HM, Escaned J, Zijlstra F, Michalis LK, Serruys PW. Fast virtual functional assessment of intermediate coronary lesions using routine angiographic data and blood flow simulation in humans: comparison with pressure wire - fractional flow reserve. EuroIntervention. 2014;10:574-83.
55. Morris PD, Ryan D, Morton AC, Lycett R, Lawford PV, Hose DR, Gunn JP. Virtual fractional flow reserve from coronary angiography: modeling the significance of coronary lesions. Results from the VIRTU-1 (VIRTUal Fractional Flow Reserve From Coronary Angiography) study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:149-57.
56. Morris PD, Silva Soto DA, Feher JFA, Rafiroiu D, Lungu A, Varma S, Lawford PV, Hose DR, Gunn JP. Fast Virtual Fractional Flow Reserve Based Upon Steady-State Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis: Results From the VIRTU-Fast Study. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2017;2:434-46.
57. Tröbs M, Achenbach S, Röther J, Redel T, Scheuering M, Winneberger D, Klingenbeck K, Itu L, Passerini T, Kamen A, Sharma P, Comaniciu D, Schlundt C. Comparison of Fractional Flow Reserve Based on Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling Using Coronary Angiographic Vessel Morphology Versus Invasively Measured Fractional Flow Reserve. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117:29-35.
58. Omori H, Witberg G, Kawase Y, Tanigaki T, Okamoto S, Hirata T, Sobue Y, Ota H, Kamiya H, Okubo M, Valzer O, Kornowski R, Matsuo H. Angiogram based fractional flow reserve in patients with dual/triple vessel coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiol. 2019;283:17-22.
59. Tu S, Barbato E, Köszegi Z, Yang J, Sun Z, Holm NR, Tar B, Li Y, Rusinaru D, Wijns W, Reiber JH. Fractional flow reserve calculation from 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography and TIMI frame count: a fast computer model to quantify the functional significance of moderately obstructed coronary arteries. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:768-77.
60. Murai T, Lee T, Yonetsu T, Isobe M, Kakuta T. Influence of microvascular resistance on fractional flow reserve after successful percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;85:585-92.
61. Westra J, Eftekhari A, Tu S, Campo G, Escaned J, Winther S, Matsuo H, Qu X, Koltowski L, Chang Y, Liu T, Yang J, Andersen BK, Wijns W, Böttcher M, Christiansen EH, Xu B, Holm NR.. Resting distal to aortic pressure ratio and fractional flow reserve discordance affects the diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio: Results from an individual patient data meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97:825-32.
62. Curzen N, Nicholas Z, Stuart B, Wilding S, Hill K, Shambrook J, Eminton Z, Ball D, Barrett C, Johnson L, Nuttall J, Fox K, Connolly D, O’Kane P, Hobson A, Chauhan A, Uren N, Mccann G, Berry C, Carter J, Roobottom C, Mamas M, Rajani R, Ford I, Douglas P, Hlatky M. Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography coronary angiography in the assessment and management of stable chest pain: the FORECAST randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:3844-52.
63. Tesche C, De Cecco CN, Albrecht MH, Duguay TM, Bayer RR, Litwin SE, Steinberg DH, Schoepf UJ. Coronary CT angiography-derived fractional flow reserve. Radiology. 2017;285:17-33.
64. Koo BK, Erglis A, Doh JH, Daniels D V. , Jegere S, Kim HS, Dunning A, Defrance T, Lansky A, Leipsic J, Min JK. Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1989-97.
65. Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ, Berman DS, Koo BK, Van Mieghem C, Erglis A, Lin FY, Dunning AM, Apruzzese P, Budoff MJ, Cole JH, Jaffer FA, Leon MB, Malpeso J, Mancini GBJ, Park SJ, Schwartz RS, Shaw LJ, Mauri L. Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA. 2012;308:1237-45.
66. Nørgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, Seneviratne S, Ko BS, Ito H, Jensen JM, Mauri L, De Bruyne B, Bezerra H, Osawa K, Marwan M, Naber C, Erglis A, Park SJ, Christiansen EH, Kaltoft A, Lassen JF, Bøtker HE, Achenbach S; NXT Trial Study Group. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1145-55.
67. Douglas PS, Pontone G, Hlatky MA, Patel MR, Norgaard BL, Byrne RA, Curzen N, Purcell I, Gutberlet M, Rioufol G, Hink U, Schuchlenz HW, Feuchtner G, Gilard M, Andreini D, Jensen JM, Hadamitzky M, Chiswell K, Cyr D, Wilk A, Wang F, Rogers C, De Bruyne B; PLATFORM Investigators. Clinical outcomes of fractional flow reserve by computed tomographic angiography-guided diagnostic strategies vs. usual care in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: the prospective longitudinal trial of FFR(CT): outcome and resource impacts study. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3359-67.
68. Douglas PS, De Bruyne B, Pontone G, Patel MR, Norgaard BL, Byrne RA, Curzen N, Purcell I, Gutberlet M, Rioufol G, Hink U, Schuchlenz HW, Feuchtner G, Gilard M, Andreini D, Jensen JM, Hadamitzky M, Chiswell K, Cyr D, Wilk A, Wang F, Rogers C, Hlatky MA; PLATFORM Investigators. 1-Year Outcomes of FFRCT-Guided Care in Patients With Suspected Coronary Disease: The PLATFORM Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:435-45.
69. Patel MR, Nørgaard BL, Fairbairn TA, Nieman K, Akasaka T, Berman DS, Raff GL, Hurwitz Koweek LM, Pontone G, Kawasaki T, Sand NPR, Jensen JM, Amano T, Poon M, Øvrehus KA, Sonck J, Rabbat MG, Mullen S, De Bruyne B, Rogers C, Matsuo H, Bax JJ, Leipsic J. 1-Year Impact on Medical Practice and Clinical Outcomes of FFRCT: The ADVANCE Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;13:97-105.
70. Cook CM, Petraco R, Shun-Shin MJ, Ahmad Y, Nijjer S, Al-Lamee R, Kikuta Y, Shiono Y, Mayet J, Francis DP, Sen S, Davies JE. Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: A Systematic Review. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:803-10.
71. Thim T, van der Hoeven NW, Musto C, Nijveldt R, Götberg M, Engstrøm T, Smits PC, Oldroyd KG, Gershlick AH, Escaned J, Baptista SB, Raposo L, van Royen N, Maeng M. Evaluation and Management of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:1145-54.
72. Erbay A, Penzel L, Abdelwahed YS, Klotsche J, Heuberger A, Schatz AS, Steiner J, Haghikia A, Sinning D, Fröhlich GM, Landmesser U, Stähli BE, Leistner DM. Prognostic Impact of Pancoronary Quantitative Flow Ratio Assessment in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:e010698.
73. Duguay TM, Tesche C, Vliegenthart R, De Cecco CN, Lin H, Albrecht MH, Varga-Szemes A, De Santis D, Ebersberger U, Bayer RR, Litwin SE, Hoffmann E, Steinberg DH, Schoepf UJ. Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Based on Machine Learning for Risk Stratification of Non-Culprit Coronary Narrowings in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120:1260-6.
74. Puymirat E, Cayla G, Simon T, Steg PG, Montalescot G, Durand-Zaleski I, le Bras A, Gallet R, Khalife K, Morelle JF, Motreff P, Lemesle G, Dillinger JG, Lhermusier T, Silvain J, Roule V, Labèque JN, Rangé G, Ducrocq G, Cottin Y, Blanchard D, Charles Nelson A, De Bruyne B, Chatellier G, Danchin N; FLOWER-MI Study Investigators. Multivessel PCI Guided by FFR or Angiography for Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:297-308.
75. Cerrato E, Mejía-Rentería H, Dehbi HM, Ahn JM, Cook C, Dupouy P, Baptista SB, Raposo L, Van Belle E, Götberg M, Davies JE, Park SJ, Escaned J. Revascularization Deferral of Nonculprit Stenoses on the Basis of Fractional Flow Reserve: 1-Year Outcomes of 8,579 Patients. Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:1894-903.
76. Marwan M, Taher MA, El Meniawy K, Awadallah H, Pflederer T, Schuhbäck A, Ropers D, Daniel WG, Achenbach S. In vivo CT detection of lipid-rich coronary artery atherosclerotic plaques using quantitative histogram analysis: a head to head comparison with IVUS. Atherosclerosis. 2011;215:110-5.
77. Otsuka K, Fukuda S, Tanaka A, Nakanishi K, Taguchi H, Yoshikawa J, Shimada K, Yoshiyama M. Napkin-ring sign on coronary CT angiography for the prediction of acute coronary syndrome. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:448-57.
78. Escaned J, Echavarría-Pinto M, Garcia-Garcia HM, van de Hoef TP, De Vries T, Kaul P, Raveendran G, Altman JD, Kurz HI, Brechtken J, Tulli M, Von Birgelen C, Schneider JE, Khashaba AA, Jeremias A, Baucum J, Moreno R, Meuwissen M, Mishkel G, van Geuns RJ, Levite H, Lopez-Palop R, Mayhew M, Serruys PW, Samady H, Piek JJ, Lerman A; ADVISE II Study Group. Prospective Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio to Assess Coronary Stenosis Relevance: Results of ADVISE II International, Multicenter Study (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:824-33.
79. Jensen JM, Bøtker HE, Mathiassen ON, Grove EL, Øvrehus KA, Pedersen KB, Terkelsen CJ, Christiansen EH, Maeng M, Leipsic J, Kaltoft A, Jakobsen L, Sørensen JT, Thim T, Kristensen SD, Krusell LR, Nørgaard BL. Computed tomography derived fractional flow reserve testing in stable patients with typical angina pectoris: influence on downstream rate of invasive coronary angiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;19:405-14.
80. Van Belle E, Raposo L, Bravo Baptista S, Vincent F, Porouchani S, Cosenza A, Rogers C, Leipsic J. Impact of an Interactive CT/FFRCT Interventional Planner on Coronary Artery Disease Management Decision Making. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021;14:1068-70.
81. Ihdayhid AR, White A, Ko B. Assessment of Serial Coronary Stenoses With Noninvasive Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve and Treatment Planning Using a Novel Virtual Stenting Application. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e223-5.
82. Nam CW, Mangiacapra F, Entjes R, Chung IS, Sels JW, Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Fearon WF; FAME Study Investigators. Functional SYNTAX score for risk assessment in multivessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1211-8.
83. Escaned J, Collet C, Ryan N, De Maria GL, Walsh S, Sabate M, Davies J, Lesiak M, Moreno R, Cruz-Gonzalez I, Hoole SP, Ej West N, Piek JJ, Zaman A, Fath-Ordoubadi F, Stables RH, Appleby C, van Mieghem N, van Geuns RJ, Uren N, Zueco J, Buszman P, Iñiguez A, Goicolea J, Hildick-Smith D, Ochala A, Dudek D, Hanratty C, Cavalcante R, Kappetein AP, Taggart DP, van Es GA, Morel MA, de Vries T, Onuma Y, Farooq V, Serruys PW, Banning AP. Clinical outcomes of state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with de novo three vessel disease: 1-year results of the SYNTAX II study. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:3124-34.
84. Papadopoulou SL, Girasis C, Dharampal A, Farooq V, Onuma Y, Rossi A, Morel MA, Krestin GP, Serruys PW, De Feyter PJ, Garcia Garcia HM. CT-SYNTAX score: A feasibility and reproducibility Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:413-5.
85. Collet C, Onuma Y, Andreini D, Sonck J, Pompilio G, Mushtaq S, La Meir M, Miyazaki Y, De Mey J, Gaemperli O, Ouda A, Maureira JP, Mandry D, Camenzind E, Macron L, Doenst T, Teichgräber U, Sigusch H, Asano T, Katagiri Y, Morel MA, Lindeboom W, Pontone G, Lüscher TF, Bartorelli AL, Serruys PW. Coronary computed tomography angiography for heart team decision-making in multivessel coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:3689-98.
86. Fearon WF, Zimmermann FM, De Bruyne B, Piroth Z, van Straten AHM, Szekely L, Davidavičius G, Kalinauskas G, Mansour S, Kharbanda R, Östlund-Papadogeorgos N, Aminian A, Oldroyd KG, Al-Attar N, Jagic N, Dambrink JE, Kala P, Angerås O, MacCarthy P, Wendler O, Casselman F, Witt N, Mavromatis K, Miner SES, Sarma J, Engstrøm T, Christiansen EH, Tonino PAL, Reardon MJ, Lu D, Ding VY, Kobayashi Y, Hlatky MA, Mahaffey KW, Desai M, Woo YJ, Yeung AC, Pijls NHJ; FAME 3 Investigators. Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI as Compared with Coronary Bypass Surgery. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:128-37.
87. Liontou C, Mejía-Rentería H, Lauri F, Goto S, Lee HJ, Nakayama M, Quirós A, Macaya F, Gonzalo N, Núñez-Gil I, Salinas P, Del Trigo M, Escaned J. Quantitative flow ratio for functional evaluation of in-stent restenosis. EuroIntervention. 2021;17:e396-8.
88. Maintz D, Seifarth H, Raupach R, Flohr T, Rink M, Sommer T, Ozgün M, Heindel W, Fischbach R. 64-slice multidetector coronary CT angiography: in vitro evaluation of 68 different stents. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:818-26.
89. Mahnken AH. CT Imaging of Coronary Stents: Past, Present, and Future. ISRN Cardiol. 2012;2012:139823.
90. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, Tuzcu EM, Webb JG, Fontana GP, Makkar RR, Williams M, Dewey T, Kapadia S, Babaliaros V, Thourani VH, Corso P, Pichard AD, Bavaria JE, Herrmann HC, Akin JJ, Anderson WN, Wang D, Pocock SJ; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187-98.
91. Kotronias RA, Kwok CS, George S, Capodanno D, Ludman PF, Townend JN, Doshi SN, Khogali SS, Généreux P, Herrmann HC, Mamas MA, Bagur R. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With or Without Percutaneous Coronary Artery Revascularization Strategy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6:e005960.
92. Pesarini G, Scarsini R, Zivelonghi C, Piccoli A, Gambaro A, Gottin L, Rossi A, Ferrero V, Vassanelli C, Ribichini F. Functional Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Influence of Pressure Overload on the Evaluation of Lesions Severity. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e004088.
93. Khawaja MZ, Wang D, Pocock S, Redwood SR, Thomas MR. The percutaneous coronary intervention prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ACTIVATION) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:300.
94. Biscaglia S, Tebaldi M, Brugaletta S, Cerrato E, Erriquez A, Passarini G, Ielasi A, Spitaleri G, Di Girolamo D, Mezzapelle G, Geraci S, Manfrini M, Pavasini R, Barbato E, Campo G. Prognostic Value of QFR Measured Immediately After Successful Stent Implantation: The International Multicenter Prospective HAWKEYE Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:2079-88.
95. Patel MR, Jeremias A, Maehara A, Matsumura M, Zhang Z, Schneider J, Tang K, Talwar S, Marques K, Shammas NW, Gruberg L, Seto A, Samady H, Sharp ASP, Ali ZA, Mintz G, Davies J, Stone GW. 1-Year Outcomes of Blinded Physiological Assessment of Residual Ischemia After Successful PCI: DEFINE PCI Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15:52-61.
96. De Maria GL, Scarsini R, Shanmuganathan M, Kotronias RA, Terentes-Printzios D, Borlotti A, Langrish JP, Lucking AJ, Choudhury RP, Kharbanda R, Ferreira VM; Oxford Acute Myocardial Infarction (OXAMI) Study Investigators; Channon KM, Garcia-Garcia HM, Banning AP. Angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance as a novel, pressure-wire-free tool to assess coronary microcirculation in ST elevation myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;36:1395-406.
97. Tebaldi M, Biscaglia S, Di Girolamo D, Erriquez A, Penzo C, Tumscitz C, Campo G. Angio-Based Index of Microcirculatory Resistance for the Assessment of the Coronary Resistance: A Proof of Concept Study. J Interv Cardiol. 2020;2020:8887369-8887369.
98. Mejia-Renteria H, Lee JM, Choi KH, Lee SH, Wang L, Kakuta T, Koo BK, Escaned J. Coronary microcirculation assessment using functional angiography: Development of a wire-free method applicable to conventional coronary angiograms. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98:1027-37.
99. Choi KH, Dai N, Li YL, Kim J, Shin D, Lee SH, Joh HS, Kim HK, Jeon KH, Ha SJ, Kim SM, Jang MJ, Park TK, Yang JH, Song Y Bin, Hahn JY, Doh JH, Shin ES, Choi SH, Gwon HC, Lee JM. Functional Coronary Angiography-Derived Index of Microcirculatory Resistance in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:1670-84.
Volume 19 Number 3
Jun 19, 2023
Volume 19 Number 3
View full issue

Key metrics

On the same subject

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00776 • Apr 3, 2023
Computed tomographic angiography in coronary artery disease
Serruys PW et al
free

EXPERT REVIEW

10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00465 • Aug 25, 2017
State of the art: coronary angiography
Collet C et al
free

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00036 • Dec 2, 2022
Pre-procedural planning of coronary revascularization by cardiac computed tomography: An expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
Andreini D et al
free

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00005 • Apr 22, 2022
Picture perfect? Performance of quantitative coronary angiography-based vessel FFR versus pressure wire-based FFR
Berry C and Ang D
free

10.4244/EIJV17I7A96 • Sep 20, 2021
Combined functional and anatomical assessment of coronary stenosis by coronary CT angiography
Andreini D
free

10.4244/EIJV16I18A264 • Apr 2, 2021
Coronary flow reserve and coronary flow capacity at a time of shifting paradigms of ischaemic heart disease
Escaned J and Kakuta T
free

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-20-00905 • Sep 20, 2021
One-step anatomic and function testing by cardiac CT versus second-line functional testing in symptomatic patients with coronary artery stenosis: head-to-head comparison of CT-derived fractional flow reserve and myocardial perfusion imaging
Westra J et al
free

CLINICAL RESEARCH

10.4244/EIJV12I6A115 • Aug 20, 2016
The Multi-center Evaluation of the Accuracy of the Contrast MEdium INduced Pd/Pa RaTiO in Predicting FFR (MEMENTO-FFR) Study
Leone AM et al
free
Trending articles
338.63

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00904 • Apr 1, 2022
Antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention
Angiolillo D et al
free
295.45

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00898 • Sep 20, 2022
Intravascular ultrasound guidance for lower extremity arterial and venous interventions
Secemsky E et al
free
226.03

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00426 • Dec 3, 2021
Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary artery disease
Lindahl B et al
free
209.5

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01034 • Jun 3, 2022
Management of in-stent restenosis
Alfonso F et al
free
168.4

Expert review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00690 • May 15, 2022
Crush techniques for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions
Moroni F et al
free
162.28

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00194 • Aug 21, 2023
Applied coronary physiology for planning and guidance of percutaneous coronary interventions. A clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the European Society of Cardiology
Escaned J et al
free
149.53

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00776 • Apr 3, 2023
Computed tomographic angiography in coronary artery disease
Serruys PW et al
free
121.43

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00958 • May 12, 2023
Management of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. A clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions in collaboration with the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery
Tarantini G et al
free
108.7

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00473 • Oct 23, 2023
Transcatheter interventions for left-sided valvular heart disease complicated by cardiogenic shock: a consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) in collaboration with the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) and the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery
Fraccaro C et al
free
103.48

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00018 • Dec 4, 2023
Definitions and Standardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations
Lunardi M et al
free
X

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

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Readers
Current issue
Archives
Subscriptions
Authors
Submit your paper
Instructions
Services
Advertise
Reprints / ePrints
Rights and permissions
Textbooks
The PCR-EAPCI textbook
The history of angioplasty
Percutaneous cardiac interventions
About the journal
Editorial team
Disclaimer
Privacy policy
Cookie Management
Follow us
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
LinkedIn
Impact factor: 6.2
2022 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2023)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2024 Europa Group - All rights reserved