Artificial intelligence coronary computed tomography, coronary computed tomography angiography using fractional flow reserve, and physician visual interpretation in the per-vessel prediction of abnormal invasive adenosine fractional flow reserve
A comparison of diagnostic performance comparing AI-QCT , coronary computed tomography angiography using fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR), and physician visual interpretation on the prediction of invasive adenosine FFR have not been evaluated. Furthermore, the coronary plaque characteristics impacti...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice 2024-01, Vol.2 (1), p.qyae035 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | A comparison of diagnostic performance comparing AI-QCT
, coronary computed tomography angiography using fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR), and physician visual interpretation on the prediction of invasive adenosine FFR have not been evaluated. Furthermore, the coronary plaque characteristics impacting these tests have not been assessed.
In a single centre, 43-month retrospective review of 442 patients referred for coronary computed tomography angiography and CT-FFR, 44 patients with CT-FFR had 54 vessels assessed using intracoronary adenosine FFR within 60 days. A comparison of the diagnostic performance among these three techniques for the prediction of FFR ≤ 0.80 was reported. The mean age of the study population was 65 years, 76.9% were male, and the median coronary artery calcium was 654. When analysing the per-vessel ischaemia prediction, AI-QCT
had greater specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), diagnostic accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) vs. CT-FFR and physician visual interpretation CAD-RADS. The AUC for AI-QCT
was 0.91 vs. 0.76 for CT-FFR and 0.62 for CAD-RADS ≥ 3. Plaque characteristics that were different in false positive vs. true positive cases for AI-QCT
were max stenosis diameter % (54% vs. 67%,
); for CT-FFR were maximum stenosis diameter % (40% vs. 65%,
< 0.001), total non-calcified plaque (9% vs. 13%,
< 0.01); and for physician visual interpretation CAD-RADS ≥ 3 were total non-calcified plaque (8% vs. 12%,
< 0.01), lumen volume (681 vs. 510 mm
,
= 0.02), maximum stenosis diameter % (40% vs. 62%,
< 0.001), total plaque (19% vs. 33%,
= 0.002), and total calcified plaque (11% vs. 22%,
= 0.003).
Regarding per-vessel prediction of FFR ≤ 0.8, AI-QCT
revealed greater specificity, PPV, accuracy, and AUC vs. CT-FFR and physician visual interpretation CAD-RADS ≥ 3. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2755-9637 2755-9637 |
DOI: | 10.1093/ehjimp/qyae035 |