Real-World Comparison of FFR and QFR: New Perspectives on the Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenoses

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The diagnostic value of Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR) with respect to Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) in real-world settings is not well described, and neither are the factors influencing the bias of QFR versus FFR well understood. The learning curve associated with QFR calculation has not been thoroughly investigated. Hence, we sought to evaluate the association between the QFR and FFR, to investigate the influence of clinical parameters on both values and their difference, and to analyze the learning curve associated with QFR measurement in a real-world setting. Methods: All patients who underwent FFR and QFR measurements in 2023 at our tertiary-care center were included. The bias was characterized using a Bland–Altman plot and multivariable regression was used to uncover its potential predictors. Results: QFR calculation was successful in 73% of 595 patients with 778 vessels with FFR measurement results. Median bias of QFR was 0.011, but in 7% of the cases, the difference between the two exceeded 0.10. A good correlation was found between the two indices. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the area under the curve of QFR for predicting FFR ≤ 0.80 was 0.912. FFR and QFR values were lower in the left anterior descending artery; acute coronary syndrome indication was associated with higher QFR values. Right coronary artery localization was associated with a greater bias of QFR, whereas female gender and aortic stenosis were associated with a lower bias of QFR. Both measurement time and bias decreased in a non-linear fashion with increasing experience. Conclusions: Clinical and angiographic factors affect the bias of QFR versus FFR. QFR has a short learning curve with growing experience leading to shorter measurement time and less bias.