+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Diagnostic performance of on-site computed CT-fractional flow reserve based on fluid structure interactions: comparison with invasive fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio



Diagnostic performance of on-site computed CT-fractional flow reserve based on fluid structure interactions: comparison with invasive fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio



European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging 20(3): 343-352



Label="AIMS">We evaluated diagnostic accuracy of CT-fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) computed on-site with a new vendor workstation, against invasive FFR as the reference standard.Label="METHODS AND RESULTS">Retrospective analyses compared CT-FFR of 104 vessels with 30-90% diameter stenosis in 75 patients imaged using single-rotation 320 detector-row coronary CT angiography (CCTA) with invasive FFR performed within 90 days. Prospective ECG-gated CCTA included exposure of 70-99% of the R-R interval. CT-FFR was computed on-site within the same physical space as the CT scanner and reading room. The diagnostic accuracy of CCTA >50% and CT-FFR ≤0.8 to detect hemodynamically significant stenosis, defined as FFR ≤0.8, was determined, as was the correlation of CT-FFR to FFR and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). Forty-four vessels (42.3%) had an invasive FFR ≤0.8. The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value of CT-FFR ≤0.8 vs. CCTA >50% to detect hemodynamically significant stenosis defined as FFR ≤0.8 were 90.9% vs. 70.5%, 78.3% vs. 43.3%, 75.5% vs. 47.7%, and 92.2% vs. 66.7%, respectively. Area under the curve of CT-FFR was significantly higher than CCTA >50% [0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.91 vs. 0.57, 95% CI: 0.47-0.67; P < 0.0001]. The correlation coefficient between CT-FFR and iFR was r = 0.62 (95% CI: 0.40-0.77, P < 0.0001) and that between CT-FFR and invasive FFR was r = 0.52 (95% CI: 0.28-0.70, P = 0.0001). CT-FFR inter- and intra-observer correlations were excellent (r = 0.83 and r = 0.82, respectively).Label="CONCLUSION">Locally computed CT-FFR based on fluid structure interaction has excellent diagnostic accuracy to detect a significant FFR ≤0.8 compared with conventional CCTA and high reproducibility.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 058212598

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 30107511

DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jey104


Related references

Study of diagnostic efficiencies of pressure indices (rest pd/pa, instantaneous wave free ratio, contrast fractional flow reserve) against fractional flow reserve 0.80 in intermediate coronary lesions. Indian Heart Journal 70: S71-S72, 2018

Diagnostic Performance of the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio: Comparison With Fractional Flow Reserve. Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions 11(1): E004613, 2018

Go With the Flow When Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio-Fractional Flow Reserve Discordance Occurs: Indeed, Beware When Relying on Fractional Flow Reserve Alone. Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 11(23): 2435-2436, 2018

Hybrid Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio-Fractional Flow Reserve versus Fractional Flow Reserve in the Real World. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 4: 35, 2017

Assessment of left anterior descending artery stenosis of intermediate severity by fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio and non-invasive coronary flow reserve. Annales de Cardiologie et d'Angéiologie 65(5): 380-381, 2016

Assessment of left anterior descending artery stenosis of intermediate severity by fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and non-invasive coronary flow reserve. International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 33(7): 999, 2017

Non-invasive instantaneous wave-free ratio using coronary CT angiography: diagnostic performance for evaluation of ischaemia-causing coronary stenosis confirmed by invasive fractional flow reserve. Clinical Radiology 73(11): 983.E15-983.E22, 2018

Reconciling poststenotic pressure with hyperemic flow: comparing coronary flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and fractional flow reserve. Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions 7(4): 432-434, 2014

Diagnostic Agreement of Quantitative Flow Ratio With Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio. Journal of the American Heart Association 8(8): E011605, 2019

Coronary Flow Reserve in the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio/Fractional Flow Reserve Era: Too Valuable to Be Neglected. Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 11(15): 1434-1436, 2018

Quantification of the Effect of Pressure Wire Drift on the Diagnostic Performance of Fractional Flow Reserve, Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio, and Whole-Cycle Pd/Pa. Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions 9(4): E002988, 2016

Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography, Computed Tomography Perfusion, and Computed Tomography-Fractional Flow Reserve in Functional Myocardial Ischemia Assessment Versus Invasive Fractional Flow Reserve. American Journal of Cardiology 116(9): 1469-1478, 2015

Accuracy and usefulness of noninvasive fractional flow reserve from computed tomographic coronary angiography: comparison with myocardial perfusion imaging, echocardiographic coronary flow reserve, and invasive fractional flow reserve. Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics 32(1): 66-71, 2017

Comparison of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR)--first real world experience. International Journal of Cardiology 199: 1-7, 2015

The diagnostic performance of CT-derived fractional flow reserve for evaluation of myocardial ischaemia confirmed by invasive fractional flow reserve: a meta-analysis. Clinical Radiology 70(5): 476-486, 2015