Global trans-lesional computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve gradient is associated with clinical outcomes in diabetic patients with non-obstructive coronary artery disease
-
Published:2023-07-26
Issue:1
Volume:22
Page:
-
ISSN:1475-2840
-
Container-title:Cardiovascular Diabetology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Cardiovasc Diabetol
Author:
Liu Zinuan,Ding Yipu,Dou Guanhua,Wang Xi,Shan Dongkai,He Bai,Jing Jing,Li Tao,Chen Yundai,Yang Junjie
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) enables physiological assessment and risk stratification, which is of significance in diabetic patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). We aim to evaluate prognostic value of the global trans-lesional CT-FFR gradient (GΔCT-FFR), a novel metric, in patients with diabetes without flow-limiting stenosis.
Methods
Patients with diabetes suspected of having CAD were prospectively enrolled. GΔCT-FFR was calculated as the sum of trans-lesional CT-FFR gradient in all epicardial vessels greater than 2 mm. Patients were stratified into low-gradient without flow-limiting group (CT-FFR > 0.75 and GΔCT-FFR < 0.20), high-gradient without flow-limiting group (CT-FFR > 0.75 and GΔCT-FFR ≥ 0.20), and flow-limiting group (CT-FFR ≤ 0.75). Discriminant ability for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) prediction was compared among 4 models [model 1: Framingham risk score; model 2: model 1 + Leiden score; model 3: model 2 + high-risk plaques (HRP); model 4: model 3 + GΔCT-FFR] to determine incremental prognostic value of GΔCT-FFR.
Results
Of 1215 patients (60.1 ± 10.3 years, 53.7% male), 11.3% suffered from MACE after a median follow-up of 57.3 months. GΔCT-FFR (HR: 2.88, 95% CI 1.76–4.70, P < 0.001) remained independent risk factors of MACE in multivariable analysis. Compared with the low-gradient without flow-limiting group, the high-gradient without flow-limiting group (HR: 2.86, 95% CI 1.75–4.68, P < 0.001) was associated with higher risk of MACE. Among the 4 risk models, model 4, which included GΔCT-FFR, showed the highest C-statistics (C-statistics: 0.75, P = 0.002) as well as a significant net reclassification improvement (NRI) beyond model 3 (NRI: 0.605, P < 0.001).
Conclusions
In diabetic patients with non-obstructive CAD, GΔCT-FFR was associated with clinical outcomes at 5 year follow-up, which illuminates a novel and feasible approach to improved risk stratification for a global hemodynamic assessment of coronary artery in diabetic patients.
Funder
National Key R&D Program of China Medical Big Data Program of PLAGH
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
Reference35 articles.
1. Yu M, Lu Z, Shen C, Yan J, Wang Y, Lu B, Zhang J. The best predictor of ischemic coronary stenosis: subtended myocardial volume, machine learning-based FFRCT, or high-risk plaque features? Eur Radiol. 2019;29(7):3647–57. 2. Lee JM, Choi G, Koo BK, Hwang D, Park J, Zhang J, Kim KJ, Tong Y, Kim HJ, Grady L, et al. Identification of high-risk plaques destined to cause acute coronary syndrome using coronary computed tomographic angiography and computational fluid dynamics. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12(6):1032–43. 3. Tang CX, Liu CY, Lu MJ, Schoepf UJ, Tesche C, Bayer RR, Hudson HT Jr, Zhang XL, Li JH, Wang YN, et al. CT FFR for ischemia-specific CAD with a new computational fluid dynamics algorithm: a Chinese multicenter study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;13(4):980–90. 4. Kitabata H, Leipsic J, Patel MR, Nieman K, De Bruyne B, Rogers C, Pontone G, Norgaard BL, Bax JJ, Raff G, et al. Incidence and predictors of lesion-specific ischemia by FFRCT: learnings from the international ADVANCE registry. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2018;12(2):95–100. 5. Patel MR, Norgaard BL, Fairbairn TA, Nieman K, Akasaka T, Berman DS, Raff GL, Hurwitz Koweek LM, Pontone G, Kawasaki T, et al. 1-Year impact on medical practice and clinical outcomes of FFRCT: the ADVANCE registry. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;13(1 Pt 1):97–105.
|
|