Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Fractional Flow Reserve versus Quantitative Flow Ratio for Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenoses

Table 2

Baseline patient characteristics.

Included studies		No. of patients	Age (y) ± SD	Male (%)	Diabetes (%)	Smoking (%)	Hypertension (%)	Dislipidemia (%)	Prior MI (%)
cFFR
Johnson et al. [4]		763	66 ± 10	72	29	48	71	67	26
Topcu et al. [15]		28	63.4 ± 12.8	79	18	61	39	—	46
MEMENTO-FFR [5]		926	68	68	33	40	82	64	26
Kanaji et al. [16]		75	66.6 ± 10.3	79.3	40.8	69.2	63.8	45	—
Shiode et al. [17]		93	70.4 ± 8.7	73.1	35.0	24.0	73.0	54	10
Van Wyk et al. [18]		76	65.6	75	15.8	9.2	51.3	76.3	—
Cerrato et al. [19]		86	66.7 ± 9.9	80.2	34.9	47.7	80.2	55.8	60.5
QFR
FAVOR pilot [9]		73	65.8 ± 8.9	83.5	27.4	—	43.8	—	31.5
Yazaki et al. [20]		142	72.5 ± 9.5	70.4	28.9	23.2	—	62	40.8
FAVOR II China [10]		308	61.3 ± 10.4	73.4	27.9	87	60.1	45.1	15.6
Spitaleri et al. [21]		45	62 ± 11	36	4	19	29	47	8.3
Emori et al. [22]		100	70 ± 10	71	48	21	73	58	22
Ties et al. [23]		96	63.9 ± 10.3	60.4	25.0	52.8	70.8	72.9	46.2
Emori et al. [24]		150	69.5 ± 9	77.3	46.7	26.7	83.3	61	25
WIFI II [25]		191	61 ± 8	67	10	59	70	—	40
Mejia-Renteria et al. [26]		242	64.2 ± 10.3	76	38	23	66	58	19
Kołtowski et al. [27]		268	66.3 ± 9.98	72	28	10.4	75.7	54.5	47.8
FAVOR II Eur-Japan [28]		272	67 ± 10	72	29	57	74	68	4
Hwang et al. [29]		265	60.6 ± 13.3	76.9	33.0	17.8	50.4	59.1	6.1
Stähli et al. [30]		436	71.5	67.9	22.5	34	87.8	79.1	32.8

Current smoker; MI: myocardial infarction.