定量血流分数和血流储备分数的诊断一致性和影响因素  

Diagnostic concordance and influencing factors of quantitative flow fraction and fractional flow reserve

作　　者：张瑞涛[1] 谢鹏昕 田振宇 米琳[1] 周继升 吴本真 何立芸[1] 郭丽君[1] ZHANG Rui-tao;XIE Peng-xin;TIAN Zhen-yu;MI Lin;ZHOU Ji-sheng;WUBen-zhen;HE Li-yun;GUO Li-jun(Department of Cardiology and Institute of Vascular Medicine,Peking University Third Hospital/State Key Laboratory of Vascular Homeostasis and Remodeling,Peking University/NHC Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Molecular Biology and Regulatory Peptides,Peking University/Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Receptors Research,Beijing 100191,China)

机构地区：[1]北京大学第三医院心内科,血管医学研究所,血管稳态与重构全国重点实验室国家,卫生健康委心血管分子生物学与调节肽重点实验室,心血管受体研究北京市重点实验室,北京100191

出　　处：《中国介入心脏病学杂志》2024年第9期481-488,共8页Chinese Journal of Interventional Cardiology

基　　金：中国心馨心血管健康基金会冠状动脉微血管疾病创新基金项目(2018-CCA-CMVD-08)。

摘　　要：目的探讨血流储备分数(FFR)和定量血流分数(QFR)诊断一致性以及影响二者诊断一致性病变的特征。方法回顾分析2019年1月至2021年12月就诊于北京大学第三医院心内科冠状动脉造影狭窄30%~70%并接受FFR检测的非急性心肌梗死患者。以FFR或QFR≤0.80为阳性(+),>0.80为阴性(–),将患者分为:诊断一致组(FFR+/QFR+和FFR–/QFR–)、诊断不一致组(FFR+/QFR–和FFR–/QFR+),以FFR为金标准,分析QFR的诊断价值,比较各组之间临床特征及病变特征之间的差异。结果共纳入236例患者,平均年龄(64.48±9.63)岁,男67.8%。QFR和FFR诊断一致性为184例(78.0%),Person相关系数为0.557(P<0.001)。在FFR+患者中,诊断不一致组中最小管腔直径更大[(1.56±0.34)mm比(1.39±0.31)mm,P=0.019]、病变长度更短[(21.37±11.73)mm比(36.86±18.09)mm,P<0.001]、冠状动脉造影衍生的微循环阻力指数(AMR)更高[(277.50±28.87)mmHg·s/m比(178.02±49.13)mmHg·s/m,P<0.001]。通过二元Logistic回归分析提示AMR[OR0.93,95%CI0.88~0.99,P=0.030]和病变长度[OR 1.27,95%CI 1.01~1.60,P=0.045]是诊断不一致独立预测因子。在FFR–组中,诊断不一致组的病变长度更长[(33.08±16.05)mm比(21.40±13.36)mm,P=0.020],AMR[(169.66±24.01)mmHg·s/m比(265.95±44.78)mmHg·s/m,P<0.001]和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇[1.57(1.10,1.97)mmol/L比2.15(1.79,2.74)mmol/L,P=0.031]更低。二元Logistic回归分析未发现具有统计学意义变量。结论QFR和FFR具有较高的诊断一致性。在FFR+患者中,AMR和病变长度可能影响QFR和FFR的诊断一致性。Objective This study aimed to explore the diagnostic concordance of fractional flow reserve(FFR)and quantitative flow ratio(QFR)and the characteristics affecting this concordance.Methods Patients with non-acute myocardial infarction admitted to the Department of Cardiology,Peking University Third Hospital between January 2019 and December 2021 were enrolled.The patients were divided into four groups:FFR+/QFR+and FFR–/QFR–,FFR+/QFR–and FFR–/QFR+with FFR or QFR≤0.80 as positive and>0.80 as negative.Using FFR as the gold standard,the diagnostic value of QFR was analyzed,and differences in clinical features and pathological characteristics among the groups were compared.Results A total of 236 patients were included.The mean age was(64.48±9.63)years,and 67.8%were male.All patients had 30%–70%coronary stenosis.The consistency rate of QFR and FFR was 78.0%(n=184),and the Person correlation coefficient was 0.557(P<0.001).Among FFR+patients,the minimum lumen diameter was larger[(1.56±0.34)mm vs.(1.39±0.31)mm,P=0.019],lesion length was shorter[(21.37±11.73)mm vs.(36.86±18.09)mm,P<0.001],and coronary angiography-based index of microcirculartory resistance(AMR)was higher[(277.50±28.87)mmHg·s/m vs.(178.02±49.13)mmHg·s/m,P<0.001]in the disconcordance group.Multivariate regression analysis suggested that AMR[OR 0.93,95%CI 0.88–0.99,P=0.030]and lesion length[OR 1.27,95%CI 1.01–1.60,P=0.045]were independent predictors of disconcordance.In the FFR–group,the lesion length was longer[(33.08±16.05)mm vs.(21.40±13.36)mm,P=0.020],a nd AMR[(169.66±24.01)mmHg·s/m v s.(265.95±44.78)mmHg·s/m,P<0.001]and low-density lipoprotein-C[1.57(1.10,1.97)mmol/L vs.2.15(1.79,2.74)mmol/L,P=0.031]were lower in the disconcordance group.No statistically signifi cant variables were identifi ed by multivariate regression.Conclusions QFR had high diagnostic value compared with FFR.In the FFR+group,AMR and lesion length may have aff ected the diagnostic consistency of QFR and FFR.The study provided more evidence for the clinic

关 键 词：血流储备分数 定量血流分数 冠状动脉功能学 冠状动脉造影衍生的微循环阻力指数 

分 类 号：R541[医药卫生—心血管疾病]