Comparison of Coronary CT Angiography-Based and Invasive Coronary Angiography-Based Quantitative Flow Ratio for Functional Assessment of Coronary Stenosis: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.
Zehang Li,Guanyu Li,Liudan Chen,Daixin Ding,Yankai Chen,Jiayin Zhang,Lei Xu,Takashi Kubo,Su Zhang,Yining Wang,Xuhui Zhou,Shengxian Tu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2022.06.002
IF: 5.17
2022-01-01
Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
Abstract:Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of coronary CT angiography (CTA)-based quantitative flow ratio (QFR), namely CT-QFR, and compare it with invasive coronary angiography (ICA)-based Murray law QFR (mu QFR), using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard.Methods: Patients who underwent coronary CTA, ICA and pressure wire-based FFR assessment within two months were retrospectively analyzed. CT-QFR and mu QFR were computed in blinded fashion and compared with FFR, all applying the same cut-off value of <= 0.80 to identify hemodynamically significant stenosis.Results: Paired comparison between CT-QFR and mu QFR was performed in 191 vessels from 167 patients. Average FFR was 0.81 +/- 0.10 and 42.4% vessels had an FFR <= 0.80. CT-QFR had a slightly lower correlation with FFR compared with mu QFR, although statistically non-significant (r = 0.87 versus 0.90, p = 0.110). The vessel-level diagnostic performance of CT-QFR was slightly lower but without statistical significance than mu QFR (AUC = 0.94 versus 0.97, difference: -0.03 [95%CI: -0.00-0.06], p = 0.095), and substantially higher than diameter stenosis by CTA (AUC difference: 0.17 [95%CI: -0.10-0.23], p < 0.001). The patient-level diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio for CT-QFR to identify FFR value <= 0.80 was 88%, 90%, 86%, 86%, 91%, 6.59 and 0.12, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of CT-QFR was 84% in extensively calcified lesions, while in vessels with no or less calcification, CT-QFR showed a comparable diagnostic accuracy with mu QFR (91% versus 92%, p = 0.595). Intra-and inter-observer variability in CT-QFR analysis was -0.00 +/- 0.04 and 0.00 +/- 0.04, respectively.Conclusions: Performance in diagnosis of hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis by CT-QFR was slightly lower but without statistical significance than mu QFR, and substantially higher than CTA-derived diameter stenosis. Extensively calcified lesions reduced the diagnostic accuracy of CT-QFR.