Association of quantitative flow ratio-derived microcirculatory indices with anatomical-functional discordance in...

Discrepancy between coronary lesion severity and functional significance has always been a relevant issue in the management of patients undergoing coronary angiography and/or revascularization. We sought to investigate the relationship between quantitative flow ratio (QFR)-derived microcirculatory indices and anatomical-functional mismatch/reverse mismatch in intermediate coronary lesions. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging and QFR were analyzed in 117 de novo intermediate coronary lesions. Lesions with QFR ≤ 0.8 were considered hemodynamically significant. Anatomical significance of the lesions was defined according to the best cutoff value of combined IVUS parameters for predicting QFR ≤ 0.8. QFR-derived microcirculatory indices including contrast-flow QFR minus fixed-flow QFR (cQFR-fQFR), hyperemic flow velocity and angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR_angio) were calculated. The best cutoff values of IVUS parameters for predicting QFR ≤ 0.8 were minimum lumen area (MLA) 3.1mm² and plaque burden (PB) 70%, with area under the curve of 0.635 and 0.703, respectively. The total discordance rate of lesion functional significance between IVUS and QFR assessments was 26.5%, with 21 lesions (17.9%) being classified as mismatch (MLA ≤ 3.1mm² and PB ≥ 70% and QFR > 0.8) and 10 lesions (8.5%) as reverse-mismatch (MLA > 3.1 mm² or PB < 70% and QFR ≤ 0.8). At multivariate analysis, IMR_angio was identified as an independent predictor of mismatch (OR1.675, 95%CI:1.176-2.386, P = 0.004), whereas hyperemic flow velocity was identified as an independent predictor of reverse-mismatch (OR 1.233, 95%CI:1.073-1.416, P = 0.003). In intermediate coronary lesions, although MLA 3.1mm² and PB 70% determined by IVUS are predictive of QFR-defined functional significance, the discordance rate remains substantial. QFR-derived microcirculatory indices are independently associated with anatomical-functional discordance between IVUS and QFR assessments.