Feasibility and Validity of Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Abstract

Background: Coronary artery disease is common in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) is a clinically used modality for assessing coronary artery disease, however, its use has not been validated in patients with severe aortic stenosis. This study assesses the safety, feasibility, and validity of CT-FFR in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Methods: Prospectively recruited patients underwent standard-protocol invasive FFR and coronary CT angiography (CTA). CTA images were analyzed by central core laboratory (HeartFlow, Inc) for independent evaluation of CT-FFR. CT-FFR data were compared with FFR (ischemia defined as FFR ≤0.80). Results: Forty-two patients (68 vessels) underwent FFR and CTA; 39 patients (92.3%) and 60 vessels (88.2%) had interpretable CTA enabling CT-FFR computation. Mean age was 76.2±6.7 years (71.8% male). No patients incurred complications relating to premedication, CTA, or FFR protocol. Mean FFR and CT-FFR were 0.83±0.10 and 0.77±0.14, respectively. CT calcium score was 1373.3±1392.9 Agatston units. On per vessel analysis, there was positive correlation between FFR and CT-FFR (Pearson correlation coefficient, R =0.64, P <0.0001). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values were 73.9%, 78.4%, 68.0%, and 82.9%, respectively, with 76.7% diagnostic accuracy. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for CT-FFR was 0.83 (0.72–0.93, P <0.0001), which was higher than that of CTA and quantitative coronary angiography ( P =0.01 and P <0.001, respectively). Bland-Altman plot showed mean bias between FFR and CT-FFR as 0.059±0.110. On per patient analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values were 76.5%, 77.3%, 72.2%, and 81.0% with 76.9% diagnostic accuracy. The per patient area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis was 0.81 (0.67–0.95, P <0.0001). Conclusions: CT-FFR is safe and feasible in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Our data suggests that the diagnostic accuracy of CT-FFR in this cohort potentially enables its use in clinical practice and provides the foundation for future research into the use of CT-FFR for coronary evaluation pre-aortic valve replacement.