Author:
Zhang Jun-Mei,Han Huan,Tan Ru-San,Chai Ping,Fam Jiang Ming,Teo Lynette,Chin Chee Yang,Ong Ching Ching,Low Ris,Chandola Gaurav,Leng Shuang,Huang Weimin,Allen John C.,Baskaran Lohendran,Kassab Ghassan S.,Low Adrian Fatt Hoe,Chan Mark Yan-Yee,Chan Koo Hui,Loh Poay Huan,Wong Aaron Sung Lung,Tan Swee Yaw,Chua Terrance,Lim Soo Teik,Zhong Liang
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate a new analytical method for calculating non-invasive fractional flow reserve (FFRAM) to diagnose ischemic coronary lesions. Patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) with FFR measurements from two sites were prospectively recruited. Obstructive CAD was defined as diameter stenosis (DS) ≥50% on CTCA or ICA. FFRAM was derived from CTCA images and anatomical features using analytical method and was compared with computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based FFR (FFRB) and invasive ICA-based FFR. FFRAM, FFRB, and invasive FFR ≤ 0.80 defined ischemia. A total of 108 participants (mean age 60, range: 30–83 years, 75% men) with 169 stenosed coronary arteries were analyzed. The per-vessel accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive and negative predictive values were, respectively, 81, 75, 86, 81, and 82% for FFRAM and 87, 88, 86, 83, and 90% for FFRB. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for FFRAM (0.89 and 0.87) and FFRB (0.90 and 0.86) were higher than both CTCA- and ICA-derived DS (all p < 0.0001) on per-vessel and per-patient bases for discriminating ischemic lesions. The computational time for FFRAM was much shorter than FFRB (2.2 ± 0.9 min vs. 48 ± 36 min, excluding image acquisition and segmentation). FFRAM calculated from a novel and expeditious non-CFD approach possesses a comparable diagnostic performance to CFD-derived FFRB, with a significantly shorter computational time.
Funder
National Medical Research Council
Subject
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine