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)。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:定量血流比(QFR)分析是一种简单、无创的冠状动脉生理评估方法,有证据表明它可用于评估与分数血流储备(FFR)相关的稳定型冠状动脉疾病。然而,目前还没有证据建议将其用于心肌梗死(MI)的非冠状动脉病变(NCL):我们采用 PRISMA 和 PROSPERO 声明进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。研究的主要目的是以有创 FFR 和非血流压力比值为参考,评估 QFR 在识别心肌梗死后功能显著性 NCL 方面的诊断准确性。我们获得了曲线下面积(AUC)、灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)的值。我们对每项研究对总体效果的影响进行了留空敏感性分析:我们纳入了 8 项研究,共对 713 名患者和 920 根血管进行了 QFR 评估。总体 AUC 为 0.941(I2 = 0.559,P 2 = 0.331,P 结论:QFR 对分析 NLV 非常有效:与 FFR 相比,QFR 在分析 NCL 方面效果显著,诊断率高,在 MI 患者中的 AUC 非常高。进行前瞻性多中心研究以确定这一人群的特征并再现我们的结果至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
8.70%
发文量
419
审稿时长
2 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信