Search

Objectives: This study is to determine the management and clinical outcomes of patients investigated with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR CT ) according to sex., Background: Women are underdiagnosed with conventional ischemia testing, have lower rates of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) at invasive coronary angiography (ICA), yet higher mortality compared to men. Whether FFR CT improves sex-based patient management decisions compared to CCTA alone is unknown., Methods: Subjects with symptoms and CAD on CCTA were enrolled (2015 to 2017). Demographics, symptom status, CCTA anatomy, coronary volume to myocardial mass ratio (V/M), lowest FFR CT values, and management plans were captured. Endpoints included reclassification rate between CCTA and FFR CT management plans, incidence of ICA demonstrating obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis) and revascularization rates., Results: A total of 4,737 patients (n = 1,603 females, 33.8%) underwent CCTA and FFR CT . Women were older (age 68 ± 10 years vs. 65 ± 10 years; p < 0.0001) with more atypical symptoms (41.5% vs. 33.9%; p < 0.0001). Women had less obstructive CAD (65.4% vs. 74.7%; p < 0.0001) at CCTA, higher FFR CT (0.76 ± 0.10 vs. 0.73 ± 0.10; p < 0.0001), and lower likelihood of positive FFR CT ≤ 0.80 for the same degree stenosis (p < 0.0001). A positive FFR CT ≤0.80 resulted in equal referral to ICA (n = 510 [54.5%] vs. n = 1,249 [56.5%]; p = 0.31), but more nonobstructive CAD (n = 208 [32.1%] vs. n = 354 [24.5%]; p = 0.0003) and less revascularization (n = 294 [31.4%] vs. n = 800 [36.2%]; p < 0.0001) in women, unless the FFR CT was ≤0.75 where revascularization rates were similar (n = 253 [41.9%] vs. n = 715 [46.4%]; p = 0.06). Women have a higher V/M ratio (26.17 ± 7.58 mm 3 /g vs. 24.76 ± 7.22 mm 3 /g; p < 0.0001) that is associated with higher FFR CT independent of degree stenosis (p < 0.001). Predictors of revascularization included stenosis severity, FFR CT, symptoms, and V/M ratio (p < 0.001) but not female sex (p = 0.284)., Conclusions: FFR CT differs between the sexes, as women have a higher FFR CT for the same degree of stenosis. In FFR CT -positive CAD, women have less obstructive CAD at ICA and less revascularization, which is associated with higher V/M ratio. The findings suggest that CAD and FFR CT variations by sex need specific interpretation as these differences may affect therapeutic decision making and clinical outcomes. (Assessing Diagnostic Value of Non-invasive FFRCT in Coronary Care [ADVANCE]; NCT02499679)., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures This study was supported by HeartFlow, Inc., Redwood City, California, via individual Clinical Study Agreements with each enrolling institution and with the Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) for Core Laboratory activities and Clinical Event Committee adjudication of adverse events. Dr. Fairbairn is on the Speakers Bureau for Heartflow. Dr. Hurwitz-Koweek is on the Speakers Bureau for Heartflow; and has unrestricted grant funding from Siemens and Heartflow. Dr. Nørgaard has received unrestricted institutional research grants from Siemens and HeartFlow. Dr. Nieman has received unrestricted institutional research grants from Siemens, Bayer, GE, and HeartFlow. Dr. Bax has received unrestricted research grants from Edwards Lifescience, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and GE Healthcare; and is on the Speakers Bureau with Abbott. Dr. Pontone is a consultant for GE Healthcare; and has research grants from GE Healthcare and Heartflow. Dr. Raff has received institutional grants from HeartFlow. Dr. Chinnaiyan has received institutional grants from HeartFlow. Dr. Rabbat has received institutional grants from HeartFlow. Dr. Binukrishnan is on the Speakers Bureau for Heartflow. Dr. Rogers is an employee of and has equity in Heartflow. Dr. Berman has received unrestricted research support from Heartflow. Dr. Patel has received grants from HeartFlow, Jansen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and NHLBI; and has served as a consultant for Jansen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Genzyme, and Merck. Dr. Douglas has received institutional grants from HeartFlow. Dr. Leipsic is a consultant for and has stock options in Circle CVI and Heartflow. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to examine the feasibility, safety, clinical outcomes, and costs associated with computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR CT ) in acute chest pain (ACP) patients in a coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA)-based triage program., Background: FFR CT is useful in determining lesion-specific ischemia in patients with stable ischemic heart disease, but its utility in ACP has not been studied., Methods: ACP patients with no known coronary artery disease undergoing coronary CTA and coronary CTA with FFR CT were studied. FFR CT  ≤0.80 was considered positive for hemodynamically significant stenosis., Results: Among 555 patients, 297 underwent coronary CTA and FFR CT (196 negative, 101 positive), whereas 258 had coronary CTA only. The rejection rate for FFR CT was 1.6%. At 90 days, there was no difference in major adverse cardiac events (including death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unexpected revascularization after the index visit) between the coronary CTA and FFR CT groups (4.3% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.310). Diagnostic failure, defined as discordance between the coronary CTA or FFR CT results with invasive findings, did not differ between the groups (1.9% vs. 1.68%; p = NS). No deaths or myocardial infarction occurred with negative FFR CT when revascularization was deferred. Negative FFR CT was associated with higher nonobstructive disease on invasive coronary angiography (56.5%) than positive FFR CT (8.0%) and coronary CTA (22.9%) (p < 0.001). There was no difference in overall costs between the coronary CTA and FFR CT groups ($8,582 vs. $8,048; p = 0.550)., Conclusions: In ACP, FFR CT is feasible, with no difference in major adverse cardiac events and costs compared with coronary CTA alone. Deferral of revascularization is safe with negative FFR CT , which is associated with higher nonobstructive disease on invasive angiography., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cardiovascular imaging plays a central role in the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease. Recently, increased emphasis has been placed on quality in cardiovascular imaging, and it is becoming a central priority for various stakeholders, including patients, physicians, and payers. The changing health care landscape and associated challenges imposed on cardiac imagers, including reductions in reimbursement and growing need for pre-authorization, have also helped bring quality metrics to the forefront. Continuous quality improvement initiatives provide the framework for the team of physicians, technical staff members, administrators, and other health care professionals to deliver high-quality care. Efforts to improve quality in cardiac imaging have started to form the foundation for numerous research studies in this arena, and although few in number, randomized control trials have begun to emerge. This review highlights quality improvement studies focusing on appropriate use education, reporting, and radiation dose reduction in cardiovascular imaging., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic yield of triple rule out (TRO) versus coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) scanning in patients with acute chest pain enrolled in a large statewide registry., Background: Although TRO scans provide simultaneous evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD), pulmonary embolism (PE), and aortic disease (AD), their use is not well defined., Methods: Patients undergoing TRO or coronary CTA at 53 Michigan institutions for acute chest pain (in the emergency department or inpatient setting) in the ACIC (Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging Consortium) were included. Demographic characteristics, scan findings, and image quality parameters were compared between coronary CTA and TRO scans. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, defined as obstructive CAD (>50% stenosis), PE, or AD; secondary outcomes were radiation dose, contrast volume, and image quality., Results: From July 2007 to September 2013, 12,834 patients underwent computed tomography scanning (TRO, n = 1,555; coronary CTA, n = 11,279). The TRO group had more women (57.1% vs. 47.8%, p < 0.001). Diagnostic yield was similar (TRO, 17.4% vs. coronary CTA, 18.3%; p = 0.37), driven by CAD (15.5% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.093); PE and AD were 1.1% and 0.4% (p = 0.004) and 1.7% and 1.1% (p = 0.046). TRO had higher median radiation (9.1 mSv vs. 6.2 mSv; p < 0.0001) and mean contrast (113 ± 6 ml vs. 89 ± 17 ml; p < 0.0001) doses. Nondiagnostic images were frequent in TRO (9.4% vs. 6.5%; p < 0.0001). In emergency department patients, PE and AD were more often detected on TRO. Among inpatients, there were no differences in overall yield or in that of PE, AD, or CAD., Conclusions: TRO was associated with slightly higher yield of PE and AD, specifically in the emergency department. This benefit comes with higher nondiagnostic image quality, radiation, and contrast doses. Although TRO may be of value in selected patients, its indiscriminate use is not warranted. The appropriate use of TRO needs to be further defined. (Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging Consortium [ACIC]; NCT00640068)., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)