Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio versus Quantitative Flow Ratio for Detecting the Functional Significance of Coronary Stenosis

Table 3

Baseline angiographic characteristics.

Included studies	Single vessel (%)	Multi-vessel (%)	LAD (%)	LCX (%)	RCA (%)
Instantaneous flow ratio (iFR)
Park et al. [16]	-	-	173 (73)	-	-
[17]	(46.2)	(53.8)	1003 (63)	271 (17)	319 (20)
ADVISE in-practice [18]	141 (36)	247 (63)	259 (66)	39 (10)	55 (14)
ADVISE II [19]	-	-	380 (54.5)	179 (25.7)	138 (19.9)
Fede et al. [51]	-	-	52 (58)	20 (23)	17 (19)
Härle et al. [52]	75 (69.4)	33 (30.6)	66 (43.7)	20 (13.2)	42 (27.8)
Indolfi et al. [26]	-	18 (15)	-	-	-
VERIFY 2 [27]	-	-	148 (57.6)	37 (14.4)	45 (17.5)
Kanaji et al. [22]	89 (74.2)	31 (25.8)	77 (64.2)	16 (13.3)	27 (22.5)
IDEAL [20]	228 (78)	63 (22)	277 (49)	172 (30)	118 (21)
Ding et al. [53]	-	-	146 (63.8)	25 (10.9)	45 (19.6)
3V FFR-FRIENDS [21]	-	-	343 (35.2)	335 (34.4)	297 (30.5)
Scarsini et al. [23]	-	-	-	-	-
Shiode et al. [24]	-	-	90 (73)	4 (3)	29 (24)
Emori et al. [15]	-	-	63 (63)	23 (23)	14 (14)
Nobre et al. [54]	-	30 (21.7)	-	-	-
Panoulas et al. [28]	-	-	53 (85.5)	2 (3.2)	7 (11.3)
Pisters et al. [55]	-	-	218 (43)	88 (17)	108 (21)
Spagnoli et al. [25]	20 (50)	20 (50)	34 (85)	4 (10)	2 (5)
Quantitative flow ratio (QFR)
FAVOR Pilot [6]	-	-	46 (54.8)	12 (14.3)	19 (22.6)
FAVOR II CHINA [7]	-	-	185 (55.7)	49 (14.8)	87 (26.2)
Yazaki et al. [29]	-	-	96 (63.6)	25 (16.6)	26 (17.2)
Emori et al. [15]	-	-	63 (63)	23 (23)	14 (14)
Emori et al. [30]	-	-	97 (64.7)	17 (11.3)	36 (24.0)
Mejia-Renteria et al. [32]	-	-	177 (59.0)	37 (12.3)	49 (16.3)
Spitaleri et al. [31]	-	45 (100)	-	-	-
FAVOR II Europe-Japan [33]	-	-	160 (50)	50 (16)	68 (22)
WIFI II [34]	-	81 (32)	129 (51)	29 (11)	46 (18)

LAD, left anterior descending artery; LCX, left circumflex artery; RCA, right coronary artery.
total amount of patients in the RESOLVE study is non-available.