ArticleHeart and vessels2022
The diagnostic performance of on-site workstation-based computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve. Comparison with myocardium perfusion imaging.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilization of coronary computed tomography angiography and computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve in a critical limb-threatening ischemia cohort.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2024Article
- Validation of pressure-bounded coronary flow reserve using invasive coronary physiologic assessment.Heart and vessels · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the diagnostic performance of on-site workstation-based computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR)Few data of CT-FFR were reported regarding the diagnostic performance for detecting hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). This retrospective single-center analysis included 132 vessels in 77 patients who underwent CT angiography, myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), and invasive FFR. The correlation coefficient between CT-FFR and invasive FFR and optimal cut-off value for CT-FFR to identify invasive FFR ≤ 0.8 were evaluated. The diagnostic accuracies of CT- FFR, and MPI were evaluated using an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) with invasive FFR as a reference standard. Diagnostic performance of CT-FFR was also evaluated concerning lesion characteristics, including intermediate lesions, left main lesions, tandem lesions, and/or diffuse lesions, and coronary calcium (Agatston score over 400). The Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis showed that the optimal cut-off value of CT-FFR for detecting invasive FFR ≤ 0.80 was 0.80 [AUC = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.76-0.90). Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and accuracy of CT-FFR when compared with those of MPI regarding per-patient analysis were 93% vs. 63%, 48% vs. 61%, 81% vs. 79%, 73% vs. 41%, and 79% vs. 62%, respectively, and for per-vessel analysis were 89% vs. 24%, 66% vs. 82%, 75% vs. 61%, 83% vs. 48%, and 78% vs. 51%, respectively. The AUC of the CT-FFR was significantly higher than MPI (0.83 vs. 0.57, p < 0.0001) regarding the per-vessel analysis. No differences in the diagnostic performance of CT-FFR were noted in the presence of intermediate lesions, left main lesions, tandem lesions, and/or diffuse lesions, and severe coronary calcium. On-site CT-FFR delivered a higher diagnostic performance than MPI for detecting CAD with invasive FFR ≤ 0.8, indicating the potential of CT-FFR as the gatekeeper of invasive coronary angiogram as well as percutaneous coronary intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34263357What 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.