Department of Cardiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Department of Cardiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2018 Mar-Apr;12(2):101-107. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2018.01.012. Epub 2018 Jan 31.
We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a novel prototype for on-site determination of CT-based FFR (cFFR) on a standard personal computer (PC) compared to invasively measured FFR in patients with suspected coronary artery disease.
A total of 91 vessels in 71 patients (mean age 65 ± 9 years) in whom coronary CT angiography had been performed due to suspicion of coronary artery disease, and who subsequently underwent invasive coronary angiography with FFR measurement were analyzed. For both cFFR and FFR, a threshold of ≤0.80 was used to indicate a hemodynamically relevant stenosis. The mean time needed to calculate cFFR was 12.4 ± 3.4 min. A very close correlation between cFFR and FFR could be shown (r = 0.85; p < 0.0001) with Bland-Altman analysis showing moderate agreement between FFR and cFFR with mild systematic overestimation of FFR values in CT (mean difference 0.0049, 95% limits of agreement ±2SD -0.007 to 0.008). Compared to FFR, the sensitivity of cFFR to detect hemodynamically significant lesions was 91% (19/21, 95% CI: 70%-99%), specificity was 96% (67/70, 95% CI: 88%-99%), positive predictive value 86% (95% CI: 65%-97%) and negative predictive value was 97% (95% CI: 90%-100%) with an accuracy of 93%.
cFFR obtained using an on-site algorithm implemented on a standard PC shows high diagnostic accuracy to detect lesions causing ischemia as compared to FFR. Importantly, the time needed for analysis is short which may be useful for improving clinical workflow.
我们评估了一种新型的基于 CT 的 FFR(cFFR)现场测定原型在疑似冠心病患者中的诊断准确性,与有创测量的 FFR 相比。
共分析了 71 例患者 91 支血管,这些患者因疑似冠心病而行冠状动脉 CT 血管造影检查,随后行有创冠状动脉造影检查并测量 FFR。对于 cFFR 和 FFR,均采用≤0.80 作为提示血流动力学相关狭窄的阈值。计算 cFFR 的平均时间为 12.4±3.4 分钟。cFFR 与 FFR 之间存在非常密切的相关性(r=0.85;p<0.0001),Bland-Altman 分析显示 FFR 与 cFFR 之间存在中度一致性,CT 中 FFR 值存在轻度系统高估(平均差值 0.0049,95%置信区间±2SD -0.007 至 0.008)。与 FFR 相比,cFFR 检测血流动力学显著病变的敏感性为 91%(19/21,95%可信区间:70%-99%),特异性为 96%(67/70,95%可信区间:88%-99%),阳性预测值为 86%(95%可信区间:65%-97%),阴性预测值为 97%(95%可信区间:90%-100%),准确率为 93%。
使用标准 PC 上的现场算法获得的 cFFR 与 FFR 相比,具有较高的诊断准确性,可用于检测导致缺血的病变。重要的是,分析所需的时间很短,这可能有助于改善临床工作流程。