Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2021
Coronary angiography-derived contrast fractional flow reserve.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gong Yanjun, Zheng Bo, Yi Tieci, Yang Fan, Hong Tao, Liu Zhaoping, Huo Yunlong, Li Jianping, Huo Yong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Based on coronary angiography and mean aortic pressure, a specially designed computational flow dynamics (CFD) method is proposed to determine contrast fractional flow reserve (cFFR) without using invasive pressure wire. This substudy assessed diagnostic performance of coronary angiography-derived cFFR in catheterization laboratory, based on a previous multicenter trial for online assessment of coronary angiography-derived FFR (caFFR).
METHODS: Patients with diagnosis of stable angina pectoris or unstable angina pectoris were enrolled in six centers. Wire-based FFR was measured in coronary arteries with 30-90% diameter stenosis. Offline angiography-derived cFFR was computed in blinded fashion against the wire-based FFR and caFFR at an independent core laboratory.
RESULTS: A total of 330 patients were enrolled to fulfill inclusion/exclusion criteria from June 26 to December 18, 2018. Offline angiography-derived cFFR and wire-based FFR results were compared in 328 interrogated vessels. The statistical analysis showed the highest diagnostic accuracy of 89.0 and 86.6% for angiography-derived cFFR with a cutoff value of 0.94 and 0.93 against the wire-based FFR with a cutoff value of 0.80 and 0.75, respectively. The corresponding sensitivity and specificity were 92.2 and 87.3% for the cutoff value of 0.94 and 80.0 and 88.4% for the cutoff value of 0.93, which are similar to those against the caFFR. The receiver-operating curve has area under the curve of 0.951 and 0.972 for the wire-based FFR with the cutoff value of 0.80 and 0.75, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Coronary angiography-derived cFFR showed higher accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity against wired-based FFR and caFFR. Hence, angiography-derived cFFR could enhance the hemodynamic assessment of coronary lesions.
METHODS: Patients with diagnosis of stable angina pectoris or unstable angina pectoris were enrolled in six centers. Wire-based FFR was measured in coronary arteries with 30-90% diameter stenosis. Offline angiography-derived cFFR was computed in blinded fashion against the wire-based FFR and caFFR at an independent core laboratory.
RESULTS: A total of 330 patients were enrolled to fulfill inclusion/exclusion criteria from June 26 to December 18, 2018. Offline angiography-derived cFFR and wire-based FFR results were compared in 328 interrogated vessels. The statistical analysis showed the highest diagnostic accuracy of 89.0 and 86.6% for angiography-derived cFFR with a cutoff value of 0.94 and 0.93 against the wire-based FFR with a cutoff value of 0.80 and 0.75, respectively. The corresponding sensitivity and specificity were 92.2 and 87.3% for the cutoff value of 0.94 and 80.0 and 88.4% for the cutoff value of 0.93, which are similar to those against the caFFR. The receiver-operating curve has area under the curve of 0.951 and 0.972 for the wire-based FFR with the cutoff value of 0.80 and 0.75, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Coronary angiography-derived cFFR showed higher accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity against wired-based FFR and caFFR. Hence, angiography-derived cFFR could enhance the hemodynamic assessment of coronary lesions.