Usefulness of the Hybrid RFR-FFR Approach: Results of a Prospective and Multicenter Analysis of Diagnostic Agreement between RFR and FFR—The RECOPA (REsting Full-Cycle Ratio Comparation versus Fractional Flow Reserve (A Prospective Validation)) Study

<div>Distribution of the lesions according the RFR and FFR for the recommended cut-off points (RFR ≤ 0.89 and FFR ≤ 0.80). The RFR and FFR values showed a significant correlation (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.81; <span class="nowrap"><svg height="9.2729pt" id="M3" style="vertical-align:-0.6370001pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -8.6359 51.1027 9.2729" width="51.1027pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M600 480C600 590 528 650 384 650H143L137 622C222 614 225 607 210 531L130 127C113 41 106 36 23 28L17 0H294L300 28C204 36 195 42 212 127L243 284L314 263C327 263 339 263 352 264C465 271 600 337 600 480ZM508 481C508 351 402 304 329 304C289 304 265 311 250 317L295 559C302 594 310 606 323 611C335 616 350 619 367 619C455 619 508 573 508 481Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.658,0)"><path d="M512 -3V55L134 254V256L512 456V514L75 281V230L512 -3Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.921,0)"><path d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,29.161,0)"><path d="M113 -12C146 -12 170 11 170 46C170 78 146 103 114 103S58 78 58 46C58 11 82 -12 113 -12Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,32.125,0)"><path d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.365,0)"><path d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.605,0)"><path d="M384 0V27C293 34 287 42 287 114V635C232 613 172 594 109 583V559L157 557C201 555 205 550 205 499V114C205 42 199 34 109 27V0H384Z"></path></g></svg>).</span> For the recommended cut-off points of the RFR (≤0.89) and FFR (≤0.80), the following values were obtained: diagnostic accuracy: 0.79; sensitivity: 0.76; specificity: 0.80; positive predictive value: 0.68; negative predictive value: 0.86.</div>

Journal of Interventional Cardiology

fig2

Figure 2

Figure 2: Usefulness of the Hybrid RFR-FFR Approach: Results of a Prospective and Multicenter Analysis of Diagnostic Agreement between RFR and FFR—The RECOPA (REsting Full-Cycle Ratio Comparation versus Fractional Flow Reserve (A Prospective Validation)) Study 

Figure 2 | Usefulness of the Hybrid RFR-FFR Approach: Results of a Prospective and Multicenter Analysis of Diagnostic Agreement between RFR and FFR—The RECOPA (REsting Full-Cycle Ratio Comparation versus Fractional Flow Reserve (A Prospective Validation)) Study 