4.4 Article

Coronary CTA enhanced with CTA based FFR analysis provides higher diagnostic value than invasive coronary angiography in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 62-67

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcct.2018.10.004

Keywords

Computed tomography angiography; Coronary artery disease; Invasive coronary angiography; Machine learning; Fractional flow reserve

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: CTA based FFR, a software based application, enhances diagnostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) examination. However it remains unknown whether it improves accuracy over the gold standard of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in predicting functionally significant coronary stenosis. The aim of our study was to compare diagnostic accuracies of coronary CTA, CTA based FFR, and ICA, with invasive FFR as the reference standard in patients with intermediate stenosis on CTA. Methods: 96 intermediate stenoses (50-90%) from 90 subjects, with intermediate pre-test probability of CAD, who underwent coronary CTA were analyzed. Each patient had subsequent ICA with FFR. CTA based FFR (cFFR v2.1, Siemens) analysis was performed on-site. The stenoses with invasive FFR <= 0.8 were considered hemodynamically significant. Results: 41/96 stenoses were hemodynamically significant (FFR <= 0.8). While the area under ROC curves (AUC) for identification of significant stenosis evaluated on QCA (0.653), visual ICA (0.652), qCTA (0.690) and visual CTA (0.660) did not significantly differ, the AUC for CTA based FFR (0.835) was significantly higher (p = 0.004, p = 0.004, p = 0.010, p = 0.007, respectively). The accuracies of CTA based FFR, qCTA and QCA were 76%, 63% and 58% respectively. Conclusion: Our results suggest that diagnostic potential of routine coronary CTA, augmented with CTA based FFR analysis, is superior to ICA in patients with intermediate stenosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available