Diagnostic Performance of Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: a Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis

Carlos Collet,Yoshinobu Onuma,Jeroen Sonck,Taku Asano,Bert Vandeloo,Ran Kornowski,Shengxian Tu,Jelmer Westra,Niels Ramsing Holm,Bo Xu,Robbert J. de Winter,Jan G.P. Tijssen,Yosuke Miyazaki,Yuki Katagiri,Erhan Tenekecioğlu,Rodrigo Modolo,Ply Chichareon,Bernard Cosyns,Daniel Schoors,Bram Roosens,Stijn Lochy,Jean‐François Argacha,Alexandre van Rosendael,Jeroen J. Bax,Johan H. C. Reiber,Javier Escaned,Bernard De Bruyne,William Wijns,Patrick W. Serruys
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy445
IF: 39.3
2018-01-01
European Heart Journal
Abstract:Pressure-wire assessment of coronary stenosis is considered the invasive reference standard for detection of ischaemia-generating lesions. Recently, methods to estimate the fractional flow reserve (FFR) from conventional angiography without the use of a pressure wire have been developed, and were shown to have an excellent diagnostic accuracy. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining the diagnostic performance of angiography-derived FFR for the diagnosis of haemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing the diagnostic performance of angiography-derived FFR systems were performed. The primary outcome of interest was pooled sensitivity and specificity. Thirteen studies comprising 1842 vessels were included in the final analysis. A Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis yielded a pooled sensitivity of 89% (95% credible interval 83–94%), specificity of 90% (95% credible interval 88–92%), positive likelihood ratio (+LR) of 9.3 (95% credible interval 7.3–11.7) and negative likelihood ratio (−LR) of 0.13 (95% credible interval 0.07–0.2). The summary area under the receiver-operating curve was 0.84 (95% credible interval 0.66–0.94). Meta-regression analysis did not find differences between the methods for pressure-drop calculation (computational fluid dynamics vs. mathematical formula), type of analysis (on-line vs. off-line) or software packages. The accuracy of angiography-derived FFR was good to detect haemodynamically significant lesions with pressure-wire measured FFR as a reference. Computational approaches and software packages did not influence the diagnostic accuracy of angiography-derived FFR. A diagnostic strategy trial with angiography-derived FFR evaluating clinical endpoints is warranted.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?