Comparison between visual assessment and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary...

We tested the hypothesis that experienced interventional cardiologists can identify patients with fractional flow reserve (FFR) <0.75 either by visual assessment of the angiogram or by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). Estimation of the significance of moderate lesions is difficult. FFR can determine the physiologic significance of a stenosis. Data comparing visual assessment and QCA of moderate lesions with FFR are limited. FFR was measured in 83 moderate lesions defined as having a 40% to 70% stenosis by visual inspection. An FFR <0.75 was considered "significant." Lesions were visually assessed by 3 experienced interventional cardiologists and their significance estimated. QCA was performed. Both analyses were compared with FFR. FFR averaged 0.82 +/- 0.11 and was <0.75 in 15 of 83 lesions (18%). The reviewers' classification was concordant with the FFR in about half the lesions. Concordance between reviewers was poor (Spearman's rho = 0.36). Visual assessment resulted in good sensitivity (80%) and negative predictive value (91%), but poor specificity (47%) and positive predictive value (25%) compared with FFR. By QCA, no patient with stenosis <60% or minimal luminal diameter >1.4 mm had FFR <0.75. QCA did not discriminate the significance of lesions outside of these parameters. Thus, neither visual assessment of an angiogram by experienced interventional cardiologists nor QCA can accurately predict the significance of most moderate narrowings.