Abstract:To assess a novel approach for automatic flow velocity computation in deriving quantitative flow ratio (QFR) from coronary angiography. QFR is a novel approach for assessment of functional significance of coronary artery stenosis without using pressure wire and induced hyperemia. Patient-specific coronary flow is estimated semi-automatically by frame count method, which is subjective and inconvenient in the workflow of QFR analysis. The vascular structures were automatically delineated from coronary angiogram. Subsequently, the centerline of the interrogated vessel was extracted from the delineated lumen on each image frame and the change in the length of centerline was used to compute the flow velocity, which provided patient-specific flow for computation of QFR (QFR auto ). A parameter derived from the increase in centerline length was used to automatically quantify the stability of contrast flow. From the two angiographic image runs used for three-dimensional angiographic reconstruction, the one with better stability was used to compute QFR auto . QFR auto was assessed in all patients enrolled in the FAVOR II China study, and compared with the commercialized QFR computational method based on frame count (QFR count ), using pressure wire-based fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard. Out of 328 vessels with paired FFR data, QFR auto was successfully computed on 325 (99%) vessels with acceptable stability in filling of contrast flow. The flow velocity computed by the proposed approach had a weak to moderate correlation with the frame count method (r = 0.37, p < 0.001), with mean differences of − 0.02 ± 0.07 m/s (p < 0.001). QFR auto had good correlation (r = 0.96, p < 0.001) and agreement (mean difference: − 0.01 ± 0.04, p < 0.001) with QFR count . Good correlation (r = 0.83, p < 0.001) and agreement (mean difference: 0.01 ± 0.06, p = 0.016) were also observed between QFR auto and FFR. Using FFR ≤ 0.80 to define functional significance of coronary stenosis, the overall diagnostic accuracy for QFR auto was 93.2% (95% CI 90.5–96.0%). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve did not differ significantly between QFR count and QFR auto (difference: 0.00; 95% CI − 0.01 to 0.01; p = 0.529). Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio for QFR auto were 92.4% (95% CI 86.0–96.5%), 93.7% (95% CI 89.5–96.6%), 14.7 (95% CI 8.7–25.0), and 0.1 (95% CI 0.0–0.2), respectively. Automatic computation of patient-specific coronary flow velocity based on coronary angiography is feasible. Assessment of QFR based on this novel approach had good diagnostic accuracy in determining the functional significance of coronary stenosis.

OP608 The Diagnostic Accuracy Of Quantitative Flow Ratio In Myocardial Ischemia Of Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Diagnostic Performance of Immediate Angiography Derived Quantitative Flow Ratio in Patients after Second Generation Drug Eluting Stent and Bioresorable Scaffold Implantation

Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Immediate Angiography Derived Residual Quantitative Flow Ratio after Bioresorbable Scaffold and Drug Eluting Stent Implantation

Diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio in prospectively enrolled patients: An individual patient-data meta-analysis.

Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Quantitative Flow Ratio for Detecting the Functional Significance of Coronary Stenosis

Diagnostic Accuracy of Angiography-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio Measurements for Online Assessment of Coronary Stenosis

Diagnostic Performance of Angiography-Based Fractional Flow Reserve for Functional Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stenosis.

Diagnostic Performance of Angiography-Based Fractional Flow Reserve for Functional Evaluation of Coronary Artery Stenosis

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

P1252Diagnostic Performance of Quantitative Flow Ratio from Coronary Angiography Versus Fractional Flow Reserve from Computed Tomography

Diagnostic Accuracy of Fast Computational Approaches to Derive Fractional Flow Reserve from Diagnostic Coronary Angiography: the International Multicenter FAVOR Pilot Study.

Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Quantitative Flow Ratio for Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenoses

Diagnostic performance of the quantitative flow ratio and CT-FFR for coronary lesion-specific ischemia

Coronary Intervention Guided by Quantitative Flow Ratio vs Angiography in Patients With or Without Diabetes.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve

Association of Quantitative Flow Ratio with Lesion Severity and Its Ability to Discriminate Myocardial Ischemia

Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative flow ratio (QFR) and vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) estimated retrospectively by conventional radiation saving X-ray angiography

Automatic coronary blood flow computation: validation in quantitative flow ratio from coronary angiography

Angiographic quantitative flow ratio in acute coronary syndrome: beyond a tool to define ischemia-causing stenosis—a literature review

Comparison of Coronary CT Angiography-Based and Invasive Coronary Angiography-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio for Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenosis: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.