Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2019 Sep;292(3):597-605.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182673. Epub 2019 Jul 23.

Determinants of Rejection Rate for Coronary CT Angiography Fractional Flow Reserve Analysis

Affiliations
Free article
Multicenter Study

Determinants of Rejection Rate for Coronary CT Angiography Fractional Flow Reserve Analysis

Gianluca Pontone et al. Radiology. 2019 Sep.
Free article

Abstract

Background Coronary artery fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from CT angiography (FFTCT) enables functional assessment of coronary stenosis. Prior clinical trials showed 13%-33% of coronary CT angiography studies had insufficient quality for quantitative analysis with FFRCT. Purpose To determine the rejection rate of FFRCT analysis and to determine factors associated with technically unsuccessful calculation of FFRCT. Materials and Methods Prospectively acquired coronary CT angiography scans submitted as part of the Assessing Diagnostic Value of Noninvasive FFRCT in Coronary Care (ADVANCE) registry (https://ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02499679) and coronary CT angiography series submitted for clinical analysis were included. The primary outcome was the FFRCT rejection rate (defined as an inability to perform quantitative analysis with FFRCT). Factors that were associated with FFRCT rejection rate were assessed with multiple linear regression. Results In the ADVANCE registry, FFRCT rejection rate due to inadequate image quality was 2.9% (80 of 2778 patients; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1%, 3.2%). In the 10 621 consecutive patients who underwent clinical analysis, the FFRCT rejection rate was 8.4% (n = 892; 95% CI: 6.2%, 7.2%; P < .001 vs the ADVANCE cohort). The main reason for the inability to perform FFRCT analysis was the presence of motion artifacts (63 of 80 [78%] and 729 of 892 [64%] in the ADVANCE and clinical cohorts, respectively). At multivariable analysis, section thickness in the ADVANCE (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI: 1.001, 1.09; P = .045) and clinical (OR, 1.03; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.04; P < .001) cohorts and heart rate in the ADVANCE (OR, 1.05; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.08; P < .001) and clinical (OR, 1.06; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.07; P < .001) cohorts were independent predictors of rejection. Conclusion The rates for technically unsuccessful CT-derived fractional flow reserve in the ADVANCE registry and in a large clinical cohort were 2.9% and 8.4%, respectively. Thinner CT section thickness and lower patient heart rate may increase rates of completion of CT fractional flow reserve analysis. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Sakuma in this issue.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types

Associated data