Fares Anas, Alaiti Mohamad Amer, Alkhalil Ahmad, Al-Kindi Sadeer, Chami Tarek, Martin Bradley, Thakker Prashanth, Nadeem Fahd, Rajagopalan Sanjay, Simon Daniel, Gilkeson Robert, Bezerra Hiram G
Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Rutgers University School of Medicine, Newark, NJ, USA.
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019 Dec;20(12):1043-1047. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2019.01.019. Epub 2019 Jan 17.
Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography (FFRct) has shown higher accuracy for detection of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) compared to coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). The performance of a combined comprehensive qualitative interpretation of both CCTA and FFRct in patient management is unknown. We aimed to explore the clinical application of this combined approach.
We retrospectively reviewed cases referred to FFRct testing at our institution over a one-year period. Patients had documentation of whether invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was performed and revascularization were needed. Interpretations and recommendations of the adopted comprehensive approach (C-FFRct), that took into account focal versus diffuse disease, depth of ischemia and myocardium at risk, were compared to those of CCTA (binary > 50% stenosis) alone and FFRct binary approach (FFRct ≤ 0.8). C-FFRct performance was measured against the decision made upon revascularization.
A total of 207 cases were referred to FFRct testing, 163 (79%) accepted and 44 (21%) rejected for quality. C-FFRct changed interpretations and recommendations of 39 (24%) and 14 (9%) CCTA and FFRct, respectively. ICA was deferred in 32 (59%) and 13 (32%) cases; whereas ICA referral rate was 7 (6%) and 1 (0.8%) cases, based on CCTA and FFRct, respectively. No major cardiac events were observed during follow up time (median = 6 months). C-FFRct sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared to decision upon revascularization were 89%, 79% and 82%. C-FFRct number needed to treat was 4, and 6, compared to CCTA and FFRct, respectively.
FFRct is a feasible tool to improve the diagnostic performance of CCTA in CAD real-world workup. However, qualitative interpretation of the FFRct report combined with CCTA findings may yield more impactful results on patient management. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate the application of this approach and better define its components.
与冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影(CCTA)相比,基于计算机断层扫描的血流储备分数(FFRct)在检测显著冠状动脉疾病(CAD)方面显示出更高的准确性。CCTA和FFRct联合综合定性解读在患者管理中的表现尚不清楚。我们旨在探索这种联合方法的临床应用。
我们回顾性分析了本机构在一年时间内接受FFRct检测的病例。患者有关于是否进行有创冠状动脉造影(ICA)以及是否需要血运重建的记录。将采用的综合方法(C-FFRct)的解读和建议(该方法考虑了局灶性与弥漫性疾病、缺血深度和危险心肌)与单独的CCTA(二元法>50%狭窄)和FFRct二元法(FFRct≤0.8)的解读和建议进行比较。根据血运重建决策来衡量C-FFRct的表现。
共有207例患者被转诊进行FFRct检测,163例(79%)接受检测,44例(21%)因质量问题被拒绝。C-FFRct分别改变了39例(24%)CCTA和14例(9%)FFRct的解读和建议。基于CCTA和FFRct,分别有32例(59%)和13例(32%)的ICA检查被推迟;而ICA转诊率分别为7例(6%)和1例(0.8%)。随访期间(中位时间=6个月)未观察到重大心脏事件。与血运重建决策相比,C-FFRct的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为89%、79%和82%。与CCTA和FFRct相比,C-FFRct的治疗所需例数分别为4例和6例。
FFRct是提高CCTA在CAD实际检查中诊断性能的可行工具。然而,将FFRct报告的定性解读与CCTA结果相结合可能会对患者管理产生更显著的结果。需要进一步的前瞻性研究来验证这种方法的应用并更好地定义其组成部分。