Effect of Coronary Calcification Severity on Measurements and Diagnostic Performance of CT-FFR With Computational Fluid Dynamics: Results From CT-FFR CHINA Trial

Aims: To explore the effect of coronary calcification severity on the measurements and diagnostic performance of computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR; CT-FFR).Methods: This study included 305 patients (348 target vessels) with evaluable coronary calcification (CAC) scores from CT-FFR CHINA clinical trial. The enrolled patients all received coronary CT angiography (CCTA), CT-FFR, and invasive FFR examinations within 7 days. On both per-patient and per-vessel levels, the measured values, accuracy, and diagnostic performance of CT-FFR in identifying hemodynamically significant lesions were analyzed in all CAC score groups (CAC = 0, > 0 to <100, >= 100 to <400, and >= 400), with FFR as reference standard.Results: In total, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, and area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of CT-FFR were 85.8, 88.7, 86.9, 87.8, 87.1%, 0.90 on a per-patient level and 88.3, 89.3, 89.5, 88.2, 88.9%, 0.88 on a per-vessel level, respectively. Absolute difference of CT-FFR and FFR values tended to elevate with increased CAC scores (CAC = 0: 0.09 +/- 0.10; CAC > 0 to p = 0.246). However, no statistically significant difference was found in patient-based and vessel-based diagnostic performance of CT-FFR among all CAC score groups.Conclusion: This prospective multicenter trial supported CT-FFR as a viable tool in assessing coronary calcified lesions. Although large deviation of CT-FFR has a tendency to correlate with severe calcification, coronary calcification has no significant influence on CT-FFR diagnostic performance using the widely-recognized cut-off value of 0.8.

Automated summary

The study aimed to investigate the impact of coronary calcification severity on the performance of CT-derived FFR. Results showed that CT-FFR had high sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC values in both per-patient and per-vessel analysis, with no significant difference in diagnostic performance among different CAC score groups.