Accuracy of instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve derived from single coronary angiographic projections
Authors' conclusion
Angio-iFR did not achieve prespecified diagnostic performance against pressure wire-based iFR.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with coronary artery lesions of 40%–90% severity with iFR and fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements; 32 centres in Europe, Japan and the US398 vessels paired
- Participants
- 441 patients
- Comparison
- Angio-iFR vs pressure wire-based iFR
- Outcome
- Sensitivity and specificity of Angio-iFR vs invasively measured iFR (performance goals: sensitivity 75%, specificity 80%)
Methodological detailsprospective, multicentre registry, blinded independent corelab analysis, prespecified performance goals
- Prospective
- Multicentre registry
- Blinded independent corelab analysis
- Prespecified performance goals
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Per-vessel diagnostic performance vs wire-iFR
| Test or model | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|
| Angio-iFR | 77% (95% CI: 69%-84%) | 49% (95% CI: 41%-54%) |
Angio-iFR
Sensitivity77% (95% CI: 69%-84%)
Specificity49% (95% CI: 41%-54%)
Further findings
Invasive iFR distribution (paired vessels)
- Mean iFR (SD 0.11)
- 0.90
- Vessels with iFR≤0.89
- 31.9%
Angio-iFR feasibility and analysis time
- Feasibility
- 97%
- Median analysis time
- 55 s
Original publication
Accuracy of instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve derived from single coronary angiographic projections. Am Heart J. Published 11 March 2025. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it