Head to head comparison of quantitative flow ratio using <scp>4‐French</scp> and <scp>6‐French</scp> catheters versus fractional flow reserve

OBJECTIVES To validate QFR using 4-F diagnostic catheters compared to using 6-F guiding catheters, with conventional guidewire-based FFR as the reference standard, using independent core laboratory analysis. BACKGROUND Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR) allows Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) calculation based on the coronary angiogram, using 5- or 6-French (F) catheters. However, the use of 4-F diagnostic catheters to perform coronary angiography is currently routine in some centers. METHODS We included all consecutive patients with stable coronary artery disease and indicated for physiological assessment. QFR was performed using a 4-F diagnostic catheter, then QFR was performed using a 6-F guiding catheter while conventional FFR was measured using a pressure guidewire. Angiograms were sent to two separate core laboratories. RESULTS One hundred lesions in 67 consecutive patients with QFR performed using 4-F and 6-F catheters, and with conventional FFR, were included. Pearson&#39;s correlation coefficient was for QFR 4-F vs. FFR 0.91 [0.87-0.94], for QFR 6-F vs. FFR 0.90 [0.86-0.94], and for QFR 4-F vs. QFR 6-F 0.93 [0.90-0.95]. Receiver-operator characteristic curves (ROC) comparing the ability to predict an FFR value above or below 0.80 with QFR 4-F and 6-F were generated. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) vs. FFR was 0.972 [0.95-0.99] for QFR 4-F and 0.970 [0.94-0.99] for QFR 6-F. CONCLUSIONS Our study demonstrated the feasibility of performing QFR analysis from angiograms obtained by 4-F catheters, and showed a good correlation with QFR performed using 6-F catheters as well as with conventional FFR performed using a pressure guidewire.