Meta-analysis of fractional flow reserve versus quantitative coronary angiography and noninvasive imaging for evaluation of myocardial ischemia

We performed a meta-analysis of 31 studies comparing the results of fractional flow reserve (FFR) against quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and/or noninvasive imaging of the same lesions. Studies were retrieved from PubMed (last search February 2006). Across 18 studies (1,522 lesions), QCA had a random effects sensitivity of 78% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67 to 86) and specificity of 51% (95% CI 40 to 61) against FFR (0.75 cutoff). Overall concordances were 61% for lesions with diameter stenosis 30% to 70%, 67% for stenoses > 70%, and 95% for stenoses < 30%. Compared with noninvasive imaging (21 studies, 1,249 lesions), FFR had a sensitivity of 76% (95% Cl 69 to 82) and specificity of 76% (95% CI 71 to 81) by random effects. Summary receiver-operator characteristic estimates were similar. Most data addressed comparisons with perfusion scintigraphy (976 lesions, sensitivity 75%, specificity 77%), and some data were also available for dobutamine stress echocardiography (273 lesions, sensitivity 82%, specificity 74%). In conclusion, QCA does not predict the functional significance of coronary lesions. FFR shows modest concordance with noninvasive imaging tests. The prognostic implications of discordant FFR and imaging results need further study. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.