Real world impact of added FFR-CT to coronary CT angiography on clinical decision-making and patient prognosis - IMPACT FFR study.
Humans
Coronary Artery Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Computed Tomography Angiography
/ methods
Retrospective Studies
Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial
Coronary Stenosis
/ diagnosis
Coronary Angiography
/ methods
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Prognosis
Clinical Decision-Making
Predictive Value of Tests
Computed tomography angiography
Coronary angiography
Coronary artery disease
Fractional flow reserve, myocardial
Stable angina
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
24
06
2022
accepted:
06
02
2023
revised:
04
01
2023
medline:
10
7
2023
pubmed:
16
3
2023
entrez:
15
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The addition of CT-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-CT) increases the diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography (CCTA). We assessed the impact of FFR-CT in routine clinical practice on clinical decision-making and patient prognosis in patients suspected of stable coronary artery disease (CAD). This retrospective, single-center study compared a cohort that received CCTA with FFR-CT to a historical cohort that received CCTA before FFR-CT was available. We assessed the clinical management decisions after FFR-CT and CCTA and the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) during the 1-year follow-up using chi-square tests for independence. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to visualize the occurrence of safety outcomes over time. A total of 360 patients at low to intermediate risk of CAD were included, 224 in the CCTA only group, and 136 in the FFR-CT group. During follow-up, 13 MACE occurred in 12 patients, 9 (4.0%) in the CCTA group, and three (2.2%) in the FFR-CT group. Clinical management decisions differed significantly between both groups. After CCTA, 60 patients (26.5%) received optimal medical therapy (OMT) only, 115 (51.3%) invasive coronary angiography (ICA), and 49 (21.9%) single positron emission CT (SPECT). After FFR-CT, 106 patients (77.9%) received OMT only, 27 (19.9%) ICA, and three (2.2%) SPECT (p < 0.001 for all three options). The revascularization rate after ICA was similar between groups (p = 0.15). However, patients in the CCTA group more often underwent revascularization (p = 0.007). Addition of FFR-CT to CCTA led to a reduction in (invasive) diagnostic testing and less revascularizations without observed difference in outcomes after 1 year. • Previous studies have shown that computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve improves the accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography without changes in acquisition protocols. • This study shows that use of computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve as gatekeeper to invasive coronary angiography in patients suspected of stable coronary artery disease leads to less invasive testing and revascularization without observed difference in outcomes after 1 year. • This could lead to a significant reduction in costs, complications and (retrospectively unnecessary) usage of diagnostic testing capacity, and a significant increase in patient satisfaction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36920521
doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-09517-z
pii: 10.1007/s00330-023-09517-z
pmc: PMC10326083
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5465-5475Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Neumann FJ, Sechtem U, Banning AP et al (2020) 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 41(3):407–477. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425
Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease. Results from the prospective multicenter accuracy (assessment by coronary computed tomographic angiography of individuals undergoing invasive coronary angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 52(21):1724–1732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.031
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.031
pubmed: 19007693
Pijls NHJ, Fearon WF, Tonino PAL et al (2010) Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-Year follow-up of the FAME (fractional flow reserve versus angiography for multivessel evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 56(3):177–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.04.012
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.04.012
pubmed: 20537493
Bech GJW, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ et al (2001) Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation 103(24):2928–2934. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.103.24.2928
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.103.24.2928
pubmed: 11413082
Peper J, Schaap J, Kelder JC et al (2021) Added value of computed tomography fractional flow reserve in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Sci Rep 11(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86245-8
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86245-8
Tavakol M, Ashraf S, Brener SJ (2012) Risks and complications of coronary angiography: a comprehensive review. Glob J Health Sci 4(1):65–93. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v4n1p65
doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v4n1p65
pubmed: 22980117
pmcid: 4777042
Fairbairn TA, Nieman K, Akasaka T et al (2018) Real-world clinical utility and impact on clinical decision-making of coronary computed tomography angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: lessons from the ADVANCE Registry. Eur Heart J 39(41):3701–3711. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy530
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy530
pubmed: 30165613
pmcid: 6215963
Curzen NP, Nolan J, Zaman AG, Nørgaard BL, Rajani R (2016) Does the routine availability of CT–derived FFR influence management of patients with stable chest pain compared to ct angiography alone?: The FFRCT RIPCORD Study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 9(10):1188–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.12.026
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.12.026
pubmed: 27568119
Lu MT, Ferencik M, Roberts RS et al (2017) Noninvasive FFR derived from coronary CT angiography: management and outcomes in the PROMISE trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 10(11):1350–1358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.11.024
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.11.024
pubmed: 28412436
pmcid: 5632098
Driessen RS, Danad I, Stuijfzand WJ et al (2019) Comparison of coronary computed tomography angiography, fractional flow reserve, and perfusion imaging for ischemia diagnosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 73(2):161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.056
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.056
pubmed: 30654888
Curzen N, Nicholas Z, Stuart B et al (2021) Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography coronary angiography in the assessment and management of stable chest pain: The FORECAST randomized trial. Eur Heart J 42(37):3844–3852. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab444
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab444
pubmed: 34269376
pmcid: 8648068
Nakanishi R, Budoff MJ (2016) Noninvasive FFR derived from coronary CT angiography in the management of coronary artery disease: technology and clinical update. Vasc Health Risk Manag 12:269–278. https://doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S79632
doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S79632
pubmed: 27382296
pmcid: 4922813
Gaur S, Achenbach S, Leipsic J et al (2013) Rationale and design of the HeartFlowNXT (HeartFlow analysis of coronary blood flow using CT angiography: NeXt sTeps) study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 7(5):279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2013.09.003
doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2013.09.003
pubmed: 24268114
De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NHJ et al (2014) Fractional flow reserve–guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 371(13):1208–1217. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1408758
doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1408758
pubmed: 25176289
Brandt V, Schoepf UJ, Aquino GJ et al (2022) Impact of machine-learning-based coronary computed tomography angiography–derived fractional flow reserve on decision-making in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Eur Radiol 32(9):6008–6016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08758-8
doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-08758-8
pubmed: 35359166
Leipsic J, Abbara S, Achenbach S et al (2014) SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 8(5):342–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2014.07.003
doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2014.07.003
pubmed: 25301040
Abbara S, Blanke P, Maroules CD et al (2016) SCCT guidelines for the performance and acquisition of coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee: Endorsed by the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 10(6):435–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2016.10.002
doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2016.10.002
pubmed: 27780758
Austen WG, Edwards JE, Frye RL et al (1975) AHA COMMITTEE REPORT: a reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease report of the ad hoc committee for grading of coronary artery. Circulation 51(4):5–40
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.51.4.5
pubmed: 1116248
Pontone G, Guaricci AI, Palmer SC et al (2020) Diagnostic performance of non-invasive imaging for stable coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2020(300):276–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.10.046
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.10.046
Hlatky MA, De Bruyne B, Pontone G et al (2015) Quality-of-life and economic outcomes of assessing fractional flow reserve with computed tomography angiography: PLATFORM. J Am Coll Cardiol 66(21):2315–2323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.051
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.051
pubmed: 26475205
Nørgaard BL, Terkelsen CJ, Mathiassen ON et al (2018) Coronary CT angiographic and flow reserve-guided management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 72(18):2123–2134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.07.043
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.07.043
pubmed: 30153968
Kvist TV, Nørgaard BL, Bøtker HE et al (2021) Computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve in patients with chronic coronary syndrome: a real-world cohort study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 45(3):408–414. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000001151
doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000001151
pubmed: 33797438
Zimmermann FM, Ferrara A, Johnson NP et al (2015) Deferral vs. performance of percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally non-significant coronary stenosis 15-year follow-up of the DEFER trial. Eur Heart J. 36(45):3182–3188. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv452
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv452
pubmed: 26400825
Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, et al. 2009 Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 360(3) https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0807611
Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi HM, et al. 2018 Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 391(10115). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32714-9
Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR et al (2020) Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 382(15):1395–1407. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1915922
doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1915922
pubmed: 32227755
pmcid: 7263833
Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. 2007 Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 356(15). https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa070829