Diagnostic performances of Nonhyperemic Pressure Ratios and Coronary Angiography-Based Fractional Flow Reserve against conventional Wire-Based Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Background Nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) have been proposed as alternatives to fractional flow reserve (FFR) without induction of hyperemia. More recently, imaging based-FFR estimation, especially coronary angiography-derived FFR (Angio-FFR) measurement, is proposed to estimate wire-based FFR. However, little is known about the diagnostic performance of these indices against conventional FFR. Aims We aimed to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of both NHPRs and coronary Angio-FFR against wire-based conventional FFR. Methods PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched for peer-reviewed original articles up to 08/2022. The primary outcomes were the pooled sensitivity and specificity as well as the area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of those indices. Results A total of 6693 records were identified after a literature search, including 37 reports for NHPRs and 34 for Angio-FFR. Overall, NHPRs have a lower diagnostic performance in estimating wire-based FFR with an AUC of 0.85 (0.81, 0.88) when compared with Angio-FFR of 0.95 (0.93, 0.97). When all four modalities of NHPRs (iFR, Pd/Pa, DPR, RFR) were compared, those had overlapping AUCs without major differences among each other. Similarly, when the two most commonly used Angio-FFR (QFR, FFRangio) were compared, those had overlapping AUCs without major differences among each other. Conclusion Angio-FFR may offer a better estimation of wire-based FFR than NHPRs. Our results support a wider use of Angio-FFR in the cardiac catheterization laboratory to streamline our workflow for coronary physiologic assessment. Classifications: FFR,, stable ischemic disease and non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.