1. Accuracy and Reproducibility of Coronary Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve in the Assessment of Coronary Lesion Severity
- Author
-
Yang G, Li L, Peng X, Tang G, Zheng N, Zhao Y, Li H, Zhang H, Sun F, and Ai H
- Subjects
fractional flow reserve ,computational flow dynamics ,grey zone ,diagnose ,myocardial ischemia ,Medicine (General) ,R5-920 - Abstract
Guojian Yang,* Le Li,* Xi Peng, Guodong Tang, Naixin Zheng, Ying Zhao, Hui Li, Huiping Zhang, Fucheng Sun, Hu Ai Department of Cardiology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Hu Ai, Department of Cardiology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, No. 1 DaHua Road, Dong Dan, Beijing, 100730, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 18601025086, Email aihumd@aliyun.comPurpose: Coronary angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (caFFR) is a novel computational flow dynamics (CFD)-derived assessment of coronary vessel flow with good diagnostic performance. Herein, we performed a retrospective study to evaluate the reproducibility of caFFR findings between observers and investigate the diagnostic performance of caFFR for coronary stenosis defined as FFR ≤ 0.80, especially in the grey zone (0.75≤caFFR ≤ 0.80).Patients and Methods: A total of 150 patients (167 coronary vessels) underwent caFFR (with FlashAngio used for calculation of flow variables) and subsequent invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. Outcomes, including reproducibility, were compared for vessels in and outside the grey zone.Results: The correlation of caFFR findings was good between the two laboratories (r = 0.723, p< 0.001). The AUC of ROC were both high for caFFR-CoreLab1 and caFFR-CoreLab2 (0.975 and 0.883). The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were not significantly different between the two laboratories (p> 0.05). caFFR had a strong correlation with measures to FFR (r=0.911, p
- Published
- 2023