The Effect of Severe Coronary Calcification on Diagnostic Performance of Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Analyses in People with Coronary Artery Disease
- PMID: 39202227
- PMCID: PMC11353250
- DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14161738
The Effect of Severe Coronary Calcification on Diagnostic Performance of Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Analyses in People with Coronary Artery Disease
Abstract
Background: Negative CCTA can effectively exclude significant CAD, eliminating the need for further noninvasive or invasive testing. However, in the presence of severe CAD, the accuracy declines, thus necessitating additional testing. The aim of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of noninvasive cFFR derived from CCTA, compared to ICA in detecting hemodynamically significant stenoses in participants with high CAC scores (>400).
Methods: This study included 37 participants suspected of having CAD who underwent CCTA and ICA. CAC was calculated and cFFR analyses were performed using an on-site machine learning-based algorithm. Diagnostic accuracy parameters of CCTA and cFFR were calculated on a per-vessel level.
Results: The median total CAC score was 870, with an IQR of 642-1370. Regarding CCTA, sensitivity and specificity for RCA were 60% and 67% with an AUC of 0.639; a LAD of 87% and 50% with an AUC of 0.688; an LCX of 33% and 90% with an AUC of 0.617, respectively. Regarding cFFR, sensitivity and specificity for RCA were 60% and 61% with an AUC of 0.606; a LAD of 75% and 54% with an AUC of 0.647; an LCX of 50% and 77% with an AUC of 0.647. No significant differences between AUCs of coronary CTA and cFFR for each vessel were found.
Conclusions: Our results showed poor diagnostic accuracy of CCTA and cFFR in determining significant ischemia-related lesions in participants with high CAC scores when compared to ICA. Based on our results and study limitations we cannot exclude cFFR as a method for determining significant stenoses in people with high CAC. A key issue is accurate and detailed lumen segmentation based on good-quality CCTA images.
Keywords: computed tomography; coronary angiography; fractional flow reserve; sensitivity and specificity.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Figures





Similar articles
-
Diagnostic performance of machine-learning-based computed fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from coronary computed tomography angiography for the assessment of myocardial ischemia verified by invasive FFR.Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Dec;34(12):1987-1996. doi: 10.1007/s10554-018-1419-9. Epub 2018 Jul 30. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018. PMID: 30062537
-
Influence of Coronary Calcium on Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning CT-FFR: Results From MACHINE Registry.JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Mar;13(3):760-770. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.06.027. Epub 2019 Aug 14. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020. PMID: 31422141
-
A Novel CT Perfusion-Based Fractional Flow Reserve Algorithm for Detecting Coronary Artery Disease.J Clin Med. 2023 Mar 9;12(6):2154. doi: 10.3390/jcm12062154. J Clin Med. 2023. PMID: 36983156 Free PMC article.
-
Is it the Time to Move Towards Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? The Pros and Cons.Curr Cardiol Rev. 2023;19(4):e190123212887. doi: 10.2174/1573403X19666230119115228. Curr Cardiol Rev. 2023. PMID: 36658709 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Computed tomography angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) for the detection of myocardial ischemia with invasive fractional flow reserve as reference: systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur Radiol. 2020 Feb;30(2):712-725. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06470-8. Epub 2019 Nov 6. Eur Radiol. 2020. PMID: 31696294
References
-
- Gulati M., Levy P.D., Mukherjee D., Amsterdam E., Bhatt D.L., Birtcher K.K., Blankstein R., Boyd J., Bullock-Palmer R.P., Conejo T., et al. 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain: Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021;144:e368–e454. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Knuuti J., Wijns W., Saraste A., Capodanno D., Barbato E., Funck-Brentano C., Prescott E., Storey R.F., Deaton C., Cuisset T., et al. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur. Heart J. 2020;41:407–477. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425. Erratum in Eur. Heart J. 2020, 41, 4242. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Corballis N., Tsampasian V., Merinopoulis I., Gunawardena T., Bhalraam U., Eccleshall S., Dweck M.R., Vassiliou V. CT angiography compared to invasive angiography for stable coronary disease as predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Lung. 2023;57:207–213. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2022.09.018. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Budoff M.J., Dowe D., Jollis J.G., Gitter M., Sutherland J., Halamert E., Scherer M., Bellinger R., Martin A., Benton R., et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: Results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008;52:1724–1732. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.031. - DOI - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous