CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Impact of myocardial supply area on the transstenotic hemodynamics as determined by fractional flow reserve Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography coronary angiography in the assessment and management of stable chest pain: the FORECAST randomized trial Lesion-Specific and Vessel-Related Determinants of Fractional Flow Reserve Beyond Coronary Artery Stenosis Clinical implications of three-vessel fractional flow reserve measurement in patients with coronary artery disease Relationship between fractional flow reserve value and the amount of subtended myocardium Experience With an On-Site Coronary Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Algorithm for the Assessment of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses Fractional flow reserve in clinical practice: from wire-based invasive measurement to image-based computation The Natural History of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI: An FFR Substudy of the Compare-Acute Trial

Clinical Case Study2018 Jan 1;121(1):9-13.

JOURNAL:Am J Cardiol. Article Link

Experience With an On-Site Coronary Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Algorithm for the Assessment of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses

Donnelly PM, Kolossváry M, Maurovich-Horvat P et al. Keywords: Coronary Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve; Intermediate Coronary Stenoses

ABSTRACT


Fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) is a new technique for the diagnosis of ischemic coronary artery stenoses. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a novel on-site computed tomography-based fractional flow reserve algorithm (CT-FFR) compared with invasive FFR as the gold standard, and to determine whether its diagnostic performance is affected by interobserver variations in lumen segmentation. We enrolled 44 consecutive patients (64.6 ± 8.9 years, 34% female) with 60 coronary atherosclerotic lesions who underwent coronary CTA and invasive coronary angiography in 2 centers. An FFR value ≤0.8 was considered significant. Coronary CTA scans were evaluated by 2 expert readers, who manually adjusted the semiautomated coronary lumen segmentations for effective diameter stenosis (EDS) assessment and on-site CT-FFR simulation. The mean CT-FFR value was 0.77 ± 0.15, whereas the mean EDS was 43.6 ± 16.9%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CT-FFR versus EDS with a cutoff of 50% were the following: 91%, 72%, 63%, and 93% versus 52%, 87%, 69%, and 77%, respectively. The on-site CT-FFR demonstrated significantly better diagnostic performance compared with EDS (area under the curve 0.89 vs 0.74, respectively, p <0.001). The CT-FFR areas under the curve of the 2 readers did not show any significant difference (0.89 vs 0.88, p = 0.74). In conclusion, on-site CT-FFR simulation is feasible and has better diagnostic performance than anatomic stenosis assessment. Furthermore, the diagnostic performance of the on-site CT-FFR simulation algorithm does not depend on the readers' semiautomated lumen segmentation adjustments.