Comparison of quantitative flow ratio, Pd/Pa and diastolic hyperemia-free ratio versus fractional flow reserve in non-culprit lesion of patients with non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES To investigate the correlation between quantitative flow ratio (QFR), Pd/Pa, diastolic hyperemia-free ratio (DFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR, gold standard) in non-culprit lesion (NCL) of patients with non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). BACKGROUND The non-hyperemic pressure ratio (NHPR) and the angiography-based indexes have been developed to overcome the limitation of the use of the FFR. METHODS Between January and December 2019, 184 NCL from 116 NSTEMI patients underwent physiologic assessment and were included in the study. NCLs were investigated with QFR, Pd/Pa, DFR, and FFR. Mean values of QFR, Pd/Pa, DFR and FFR were 0.85 ± 0.10, 0.92 ± 0.07, 0.93 ± 0.05 and 0.84 ± 0.07, respectively. According to established cut-offs of QFR, Pd/Pa, DFR, FFR, 42 (23%), 60 (33%), 55 (30%) and 58 (31.5%) lesions resulted flow-limiting. RESULTS DFR and FFR showed a good correlation (r = 0.76). Bland and Altman plot showed a mean difference of 0.080. DFR Diagnostic accuracy was 88%. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for DFR was 0.946 (95%CI 0.90-0.97, p = .0001). Similar findings were reported for Pd/Pa (r = 0.73; mean difference 0.095, diagnostic accuracy 84%, AUC 0.909 [95%CI 0.85-0.94, p = .0001]) and QFR (r = 0.68; mean difference 0.01; diagnostic accuracy 88%, AUC 0.964 [95% CI 0.91-0.98, p = .0001]). FFR, QFR, Pd/Pa and DFR identified 31%, 32%, 30% and 32% potentially flow-limiting lesions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In NSTEMI patients, QFR, Pd/Pa and DFR showed equivalence as compared to gold standard FFR in the discrimination of non-culprit lesions requiring revascularization.