SynthesisEuropean radiology2024
A meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic performance of computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve and coronary computed tomography angiography at different levels of coronary artery calcium score.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of CT-derived fractional flow reserve across coronary lesion morphologies: a prospective multicenter study.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement Using Dynamic CT Perfusion Imaging in Patients with Heavy Coronary Calcification and Stent.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- [Value of Multivariate Computed Tomography Angiography for Predicting Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients With Coronary Artery Heart Disease].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026Article
- FFR-CT: Technical Advances and Implementation in Clinical Practice.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- High-resolution deep learning reconstruction to improve the accuracy of CT fractional flow reserve.European radiology · 2025Article
- Clinical Impact of CT-Based FFR in Everyday Cardiology: Bridging Computation and Decision-Making.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Computed Tomography and Coronary Plaque Analysis.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Review
- Fractional Flow Reserve from Coronary CT: Evidence, Applications, and Future Directions.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Clinical Applications of Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from Computed Tomography in Coronary Artery Disease.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- The Effect of Severe Coronary Calcification on Diagnostic Performance of Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Analyses in People with Coronary Artery Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe impact of coronary calcification on the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) remains a crucial consideration. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic performance of CT-FFR and CCTA at different levels of coronary artery calcium score (CACS). METHODS AND
resultsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant articles on CCTA, CT-FFR, and invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). Ten studies were included to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CT-FFR and CCTA at the per-patient and per-vessel levels in four CACS groups. Invasive FFR was used as the reference standard. Except for the CACS ≥ 400 group, the AUC of CT-FFR was higher than those of CCTA in other subgroups of CACS (in CACS < 100 (per-patient, 0.9 (95% CI 0.87-0.92) vs. 0.32 (95% CI 0.28-0.36); per-vessel, 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.94) vs. 0.66 (95% CI 0.62-0.7); both p < 0.001), CACS ≥ 100 (per-patient, 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.88) vs. 0.44 (95% CI 0.4-0.48); per-vessel, 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.9) vs. 0.51 (95% CI 0.46-0.55); both p < 0.001), and CACS < 400 (per-patient, 0.9 (95% CI 0.87-0.93) vs. 0.74 (95% CI 0.7-0.78), p < 0.001; per-vessel, 0.8 (95% CI 0.76-0.83) vs. 0.74 (95% CI 0.7-0.78); p = 0.02)).
conclusionsCT-FFR demonstrates superior diagnostic performance in low CACS groups (CACS < 400) than CCTA in detecting hemodynamic stenoses in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve might be utilized to determine the necessity of invasive coronary angiography in coronary artery disease patients with coronary artery calcium score < 400. KEY POINTS: • There is a lack of meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic performance of computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve and coronary computed tomography angiography at different levels of calcification. • Computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve only has a better diagnostic performance than coronary computed tomography angiography with low amounts of coronary calcium. • For the low coronary artery calcium score group, computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve might be a good non-invasive method to detect hemodynamic stenoses in coronary artery disease patients.
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.