Predictive Value of Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Quantitative Flow Ratio for Vessel-Oriented Composite Endpoint

Table 3

Post-PCI QFR value and Cox regression multivariate analysis results.

Studies	Post-PCI QFR mean or median	Post-PCI QFR ≤ 0.8	QFR cutoff	Target vessel numbers		Post-PCI VOCE numbers		HR (95% CI)
				Lower post-PCIQFR group	Higher post-PCIQFR group	Lower post-PCIQFR group (%)	Higher post-PCIQFR group (%)
Biscaglia et al. [1]	0.97 (0.92, 0.99)	NA	0.89	123	628	31 (25.20%)	22 (3.50%)	2.91 (1.63–5.19)
Kogame [12]	0.91 ± 0.07	7.4%	0.91	284	487	34 (11.97%)	18 (3.70%)	3.38 (1.85–6.20)
Tang et al. [13]	0.94 ± 0.09	NA	0.91	101	314	21 (20.79%)	18 (5.73%)	2.718 (1.347–5.486)
Tang [14]	NA	5.9%	0.94	59	126	20 (33.90%)	7 (5.56%)	6.53 (2.70–15.8)
Liu and Ding [15]	NA	7.1%	0.89	36	133	11 (30.56%)	9 (6.77%)	5.94 (2.33–15.09)
Zhang [16]	0.98 (0.95, 1.00)	NA	0.92	416	1811	51 (12.26%)	31 (1.71%)	6.007 (3.634–9.930)

QFR, quantitative flow ratio; VOCE, vessel-oriented composite endpoint; HR (95% CI), hazard ratio (95% confidence interval); NA, not available. The factors adjusted for in the 6 studies were as follows: (1) Biscaglia et al.: diabetes, prior MI, lesion length, post-PCI %DS, left anterior descending coronary artery location, and baseline SYNTAX score; (2) Kogame et al.: creatinine clearance, LAD stenosis, and SYNTAX score; (3) Tang and Chu et al.: peak troponin I, diffuse disease, culprit lesion, and diabetes mellitus; (4) Tang and Hou et al.: diabetes mellitus, diameter stenosis (post-procedural in-stent); (5) Liu et al.: diabetes mellitus, difference of drug-coated balloon diameter and reference vessel diameter (per 0.10-mm increase); (6) Zhang et al.: age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, family history of coronary artery disease, creatine clearance, left ventricular ejection fraction, acute myocardial infarction, vessel SYNTAX score, total occlusion, baseline diameter stenosis, post-PCI in-stent diameter stenosis.