Accuracy of computational pressure-fluid dynamics applied to coronary angiography to derive fractional flow reserve: FLASH FFR
Abstract Aims Conventional fractional flow reserve (FFR) is measured invasively using a coronary guidewire equipped with a pressure sensor. A non-invasive derived FFR would eliminate risk of coronary injury, minimize technical limitations, and potentially increase adoption. We aimed to evaluate the...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cardiovascular research 2020-06, Vol.116 (7), p.1349-1356 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Abstract
Aims
Conventional fractional flow reserve (FFR) is measured invasively using a coronary guidewire equipped with a pressure sensor. A non-invasive derived FFR would eliminate risk of coronary injury, minimize technical limitations, and potentially increase adoption. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a computational pressure-flow dynamics derived FFR (caFFR), applied to coronary angiography, compared to invasive FFR.
Methods and results
The FLASH FFR study was a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study conducted at six centres in China. Eligible patients had native coronary artery target lesions with visually estimated diameter stenosis of 30–90% and diagnosis of stable or unstable angina pectoris. Using computational pressure-fluid dynamics, in conjunction with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) frame count, applied to coronary angiography, caFFR was measured online in real-time and compared blind to conventional invasive FFR by an independent core laboratory. The primary endpoint was the agreement between caFFR and FFR, with a pre-specified performance goal of 84%. Between June and December 2018, matched caFFR and FFR measurements were performed in 328 coronary arteries. Total operational time for caFFR was 4.54 ± 1.48 min. caFFR was highly correlated to FFR (R = 0.89, P = 0.76) with a mean bias of −0.002 ± 0.049 (95% limits of agreement −0.098 to 0.093). The diagnostic performance of caFFR vs. FFR was diagnostic accuracy 95.7%, sensitivity 90.4%, specificity 98.6%, positive predictive value 97.2%, negative predictive value 95.0%, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.979.
Conclusions
Using wire-based FFR as the reference, caFFR has high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. caFFR could eliminate the need of a pressure wire, technical error and potentially increase adoption of physiological assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity.
Clinical Trial Registration
URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn Unique Identifier: ChiCTR1800019522. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0008-6363 1755-3245 |
DOI: | 10.1093/cvr/cvz289 |