CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Five-Year Outcomes with PCI Guided by Fractional Flow Reserve Post-stenting fractional flow reserve vs coronary angiography for optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention: TARGET-FFR trial Long-term Variations of FFR and iFR After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI as Compared with Coronary Bypass Surgery Physiological Stratification of Patients With Angina Due to Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease New Volumetric Analysis Method for Stent Expansion and its Correlation With Final Fractional Flow Reserve and Clinical Outcome An ILUMIEN I Substudy Coronary fractional flow reserve in bifurcation stenoses: what have we learned?
|<<... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>|

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.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top