José Alfredo Salinas-Casanova, Vicente Alonso Jiménez-Franco, Carlos Jerjes-Sanchez, Juan Alberto Quintanilla-Gutiérrez, Erasmo De la Pena-Almaguer, Daniela Eguiluz-Hernández, Sofía Vences-Monroy, Jorge Armando Joya-Harrison, Christian Eduardo Juarez-Gavino, Mónica María Flores-Zertuche, Juan Carlos Ibarrola-Peña, Daniel Lira-Lozano, Marisol Molina-Avilés, Guillermo Torre-Amione
{"title":"用于评估心肌梗死非致命病变的定量血流比率(QFR-OUTSMART)的诊断性能:系统回顾和荟萃分析》(Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)。","authors":"José Alfredo Salinas-Casanova, Vicente Alonso Jiménez-Franco, Carlos Jerjes-Sanchez, Juan Alberto Quintanilla-Gutiérrez, Erasmo De la Pena-Almaguer, Daniela Eguiluz-Hernández, Sofía Vences-Monroy, Jorge Armando Joya-Harrison, Christian Eduardo Juarez-Gavino, Mónica María Flores-Zertuche, Juan Carlos Ibarrola-Peña, Daniel Lira-Lozano, Marisol Molina-Avilés, Guillermo Torre-Amione","doi":"10.1002/ccd.31293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) analysis is a simple and non-invasive coronary physiological assessment method with evidence for evaluating stable coronary artery disease with correlation to fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, there is no evidence to recommend its use in non-culprit lesions (NCLs) in myocardial infarction (MI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA and PROSPERO statements. The study's primary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of QFR in identifying functionally significant NCLs after MI based on invasive FFR and non-hyperemic pressure ratios as references. We obtained values of the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). We performed a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis for each study's impact on the overall effect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included eight studies, with 713 patients and 920 vessels evaluated with QFR. The overall AUC was 0.941 (I<sup>2</sup> = 0.559, p < 0.002), with a sensitivity of 87.3%, a specificity of 89.4%, a PPV of 86.6%, and an NPV of 90.1%. Compared to FFR, we found an AUC of 0.957 (I<sup>2</sup> = 0.331, p < 0.194), a sensitivity of 89.6%, a specificity of 89.8%, a PPV of 88.3%, and an NPV of 91%. The sensitivity analysis showed a similar diagnostic performance in both studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>QFR is effective in analyzing NCLs with a significant diagnostic yield compared to FFR, with an excellent AUC in MI patients. Performing prospective multicenter studies to characterize this population and reproduce our results is essential.</p>","PeriodicalId":9650,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Performance of Quantitative Flow Ratio for the Assessment of Non-Culprit Lesions in Myocardial Infarction (QFR-OUTSMART): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"José Alfredo Salinas-Casanova, Vicente Alonso Jiménez-Franco, Carlos Jerjes-Sanchez, Juan Alberto Quintanilla-Gutiérrez, Erasmo De la Pena-Almaguer, Daniela Eguiluz-Hernández, Sofía Vences-Monroy, Jorge Armando Joya-Harrison, Christian Eduardo Juarez-Gavino, Mónica María Flores-Zertuche, Juan Carlos Ibarrola-Peña, Daniel Lira-Lozano, Marisol Molina-Avilés, Guillermo Torre-Amione\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ccd.31293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) analysis is a simple and non-invasive coronary physiological assessment method with evidence for evaluating stable coronary artery disease with correlation to fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, there is no evidence to recommend its use in non-culprit lesions (NCLs) in myocardial infarction (MI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA and PROSPERO statements. The study's primary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of QFR in identifying functionally significant NCLs after MI based on invasive FFR and non-hyperemic pressure ratios as references. We obtained values of the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). We performed a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis for each study's impact on the overall effect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included eight studies, with 713 patients and 920 vessels evaluated with QFR. The overall AUC was 0.941 (I<sup>2</sup> = 0.559, p < 0.002), with a sensitivity of 87.3%, a specificity of 89.4%, a PPV of 86.6%, and an NPV of 90.1%. Compared to FFR, we found an AUC of 0.957 (I<sup>2</sup> = 0.331, p < 0.194), a sensitivity of 89.6%, a specificity of 89.8%, a PPV of 88.3%, and an NPV of 91%. The sensitivity analysis showed a similar diagnostic performance in both studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>QFR is effective in analyzing NCLs with a significant diagnostic yield compared to FFR, with an excellent AUC in MI patients. Performing prospective multicenter studies to characterize this population and reproduce our results is essential.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31293\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31293","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Diagnostic Performance of Quantitative Flow Ratio for the Assessment of Non-Culprit Lesions in Myocardial Infarction (QFR-OUTSMART): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Background: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) analysis is a simple and non-invasive coronary physiological assessment method with evidence for evaluating stable coronary artery disease with correlation to fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, there is no evidence to recommend its use in non-culprit lesions (NCLs) in myocardial infarction (MI).
Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA and PROSPERO statements. The study's primary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of QFR in identifying functionally significant NCLs after MI based on invasive FFR and non-hyperemic pressure ratios as references. We obtained values of the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). We performed a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis for each study's impact on the overall effect.
Results: We included eight studies, with 713 patients and 920 vessels evaluated with QFR. The overall AUC was 0.941 (I2 = 0.559, p < 0.002), with a sensitivity of 87.3%, a specificity of 89.4%, a PPV of 86.6%, and an NPV of 90.1%. Compared to FFR, we found an AUC of 0.957 (I2 = 0.331, p < 0.194), a sensitivity of 89.6%, a specificity of 89.8%, a PPV of 88.3%, and an NPV of 91%. The sensitivity analysis showed a similar diagnostic performance in both studies.
Conclusions: QFR is effective in analyzing NCLs with a significant diagnostic yield compared to FFR, with an excellent AUC in MI patients. Performing prospective multicenter studies to characterize this population and reproduce our results is essential.
期刊介绍:
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions is an international journal covering the broad field of cardiovascular diseases. Subject material includes basic and clinical information that is derived from or related to invasive and interventional coronary or peripheral vascular techniques. The journal focuses on material that will be of immediate practical value to physicians providing patient care in the clinical laboratory setting. To accomplish this, the journal publishes Preliminary Reports and Work In Progress articles that complement the traditional Original Studies, Case Reports, and Comprehensive Reviews. Perspective and insight concerning controversial subjects and evolving technologies are provided regularly through Editorial Commentaries furnished by members of the Editorial Board and other experts. Articles are subject to double-blind peer review and complete editorial evaluation prior to any decision regarding acceptability.