Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37849942›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023

Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography angiography in ischemia-specific coronary artery stenosis and indeterminate lesions: results from a multicenter study in China.

Yaodong Ding, Quan Li, Yang Zhang, Yida Tang, Haitao Zhang, Qing Yang, Xiling Shou, Yicong Ye, Xiliang Zhao, Yi Ye and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Yaodong DingDepartment of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Quan LiDepartment of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Yang ZhangDepartment of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Yida TangDepartment of Cardiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Haitao ZhangDepartment of Cardiology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, China.
Qing YangDepartment of Cardiology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Xiling ShouDepartment of Cardiology, Shanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Shanxi, China.
Yicong YeDepartment of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Xiliang ZhaoDepartment of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Yi YeDepartment of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Chao ZhangShenzhen Escope Technology Ltd., Shenzhen, China.
Yuqi LiuShenzhen Escope Technology Ltd., Shenzhen, China.
Yong ZengDepartment of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
University of Hong Kong · HKChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNPeking University · CNTianjin Medical University General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: To determine the diagnostic performance of a novel computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based algorithm for Methods: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), invasive coronary angiography (ICA), and FFR were performed on 324 vessels from 301 patients from six clinical medical centers. Local investigators used CCTA and ICA to conduct assessments of stenosis, and CT-FFR calculations were performed in the core laboratory. For CCTA and ICA, CT-FFR ≤ 0.8 and a stenosis diameter ≥ 50% were identified as lesion-specific ischemia. Univariate logistic regression models were used to assess the effect of features on discordant lesions (false negative and false positive) in different CT-FFR categories. The diagnostic performance of CT-FFR was analyzed using an invasive FFR ≤ 0.8 as the gold standard. Results: The Youden index indicated an optimal threshold of 0.80 for CT-FFR to identify functionally ischemic lesions. On a per-patient basis, the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for CT-FFR were 96% (91%-98%), 92% (87%-96%), 94% (90%-96%), 91% (85%-95%), and 96% (92%-99%), respectively. The diagnostic efficacy of CT-FFR was higher than that of CCTA without the influence of calcification. Closer to the cut point, there was less certainty, with the agreement between the invasive FFR and the CT-FFR being at its lowest in the CT-FFR range of 0.7-0.8. In all lesions, luminal stenosis ≥ 50% significantly affected the risk of reduced false negatives (FN) and false positives (FP) results by CT-FFR, irrespective of the association with calcified plaque. Conclusions: In summary, CT-FFR based on the new parameter-optimized CFD model has a better diagnostic performance than CTA for lesion-specific ischemia. The presence of calcified plaque has no significant effect on the diagnostic performance of CT-FFR and is independent of the degree of calcification. Given the range of applicability of our software, its use at a CT-FFR of 0.7-0.8 requires caution and must be considered in the context of multiple factors.

Indexed as

computational fluid dynamics (CFD)computed tomography (CTA)coronary artery disease (CAD)coronary computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR)indeterminate lesions

Identifiers

PMID37849942
PMCPMC10577408
OpenAlexW4387307989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.