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 

TITLE=Diagnostic Performance of Fractional Flow Reserve From CT Coronary Angiography With Analytical Method

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

VOLUME=8

YEAR=2021

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2021.739633

DOI=10.3389/fcvm.2021.739633

ISSN=2297-055X

ABSTRACT=<p>The aim of this study was to evaluate a new analytical method for calculating non-invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR<sub>AM</sub>) 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. FFR<sub>AM</sub> was derived from CTCA images and anatomical features using analytical method and was compared with computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based FFR (FFR<sub>B</sub>) and invasive ICA-based FFR. FFR<sub>AM</sub>, FFR<sub>B</sub>, 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 FFR<sub>AM</sub> and 87, 88, 86, 83, and 90% for FFR<sub>B</sub>. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for FFR<sub>AM</sub> (0.89 and 0.87) and FFR<sub>B</sub> (0.90 and 0.86) were higher than both CTCA- and ICA-derived DS (all <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.0001) on per-vessel and per-patient bases for discriminating ischemic lesions. The computational time for FFR<sub>AM</sub> was much shorter than FFR<sub>B</sub> (2.2 ± 0.9 min <italic>vs</italic>. 48 ± 36 min, excluding image acquisition and segmentation). FFR<sub>AM</sub> calculated from a novel and expeditious non-CFD approach possesses a comparable diagnostic performance to CFD-derived FFR<sub>B</sub>, with a significantly shorter computational time.</p>