Cargando…

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 C...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhao, Na, Gao, Yang, Xu, Bo, Yang, Weixian, Song, Lei, Jiang, Tao, Xu, Li, Hu, Hongjie, Li, Lin, Chen, Wenqiang, Li, Dumin, Zhang, Feng, Fan, Lijuan, Lu, Bin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8761984/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35047581
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.810625
Descripción
Sumario: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 <100: 0.06 ± 0.06; CAC ≥ 100 to <400: 0.09 ± 0.10; CAC ≥ 400: 0.11 ± 0.13; 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.