ArticleHeart and vessels2020
Adjustment of CT-fractional flow reserve based on fluid-structure interaction underestimation to minimize 1-year cardiac events.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement of Fractional Flow Reserve Estimated by Computed Tomography With Invasively Measured Fractional Flow Reserve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Pooled it
- The diagnostic performance of on-site workstation-based computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve. Comparison with myocardium perfusion imaging.Heart and vessels · 2022Article
- Incremental Diagnostic Value of CT Fractional Flow Reserve Using Subtraction Method in Patients with Severe Calcification: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Plaque characteristics on coronary CT angiography associated with the positive findings of fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio.Heart and vessels · 2021Article
- Functional cardiac CT-Going beyond Anatomical Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease with Cine CT, CT-FFR, CT Perfusion and Machine Learning.The British journal of radiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the optimal cut-off value of CT-Fractional Flow Reserve (CT-FFR) using fluid-structure interaction and how to adjust the CT-FFR's underestimation from a standpoint of minimize 1-year cardiac events. Subjects were 38 cases with 44 vessels in which stenosis of 30-90% was detected using one-rotation scanning by 320-row coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and invasive FFR (i-FFR) was performed within subsequent 90 days. CT-FFR was calculated using on-site from the multiple cardiac phases. A hypothetical 1-year cardiac event incidence was estimated using previous evidences when revascularization was decided based on CT-FFR. We assessed the optimal cut-off value of CT-FFR and how to correct the CT-FFR to minimize hypothetical cardiac events under four different disease prevalence (20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, and 40%). A total of 16 vessels had i-FFR ≤ 0.8. On per-patient basis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predict value, negative predict value, and diagnostic accuracy of CT-FFR ≦ 0.8 vs CCTA > 50% to detect functional stenosis defined as invasive FFR ≦ 0.80 were 93.3% vs 73.3%, 73.9% vs 26.1%, 70.0% vs 39.3%, 94.4% vs 60.0%, and 81.6% vs 44.7%, respectively. For minimize 1-year cardiac events, the optimal cut-off value for more than 30% of disease prevalence was 0.80. However, the optimal cut-off value for 20, 25, and 30% was 0.54 in any cases. After the adjustment of CT-FFR using a formula of 0.3X + 0.634 for CT-FFR < 0.7 to counteract its underestimation, the % reduction of the events for 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40% at a 0.80 cut-off were 19.0%, 15.6%, 12.6%, 10.0%, and 7.7% respectively. It was reasonable to support that the optimal cut-off value was 0.80 in disease prevalence of more than 30% for minimize 1-year cardiac events. However, underestimation should be adjusted to reduce cardiac events, especially when disease prevalence is low.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.