How should clinicians interpret individual computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve results received in clinical practice?
In this systematic review that included 908 vessels in 536 patients, the overall diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve was 81.9%. However, over narrower ranges of disease severity, diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve was lower in the middle ranges of the values.
The diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve is high at extremes of disease severity but is considerably weaker in the more intermediate forms of disease that form most of real-world clinical cases.
Computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-CT) is a novel, noninvasive test for myocardial ischemia. Clinicians using FFR-CT must be able to interpret individual FFR-CT results to determine subsequent patient care.
To provide clinicians a means of interpreting individual FFR-CT results with respect to the range of invasive FFRs that this interpretation might likely represent.
We performed a systematic review in accordance with guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A systematic search of MEDLINE (January 1, 2011, to 2016, week 2) and EMBASE (January 1, 2011, to 2016, week 2) was performed for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of FFR-CT. Title words used were computed tomography or computed tomographic and fractional flow reserve or FFR. Results were limited to publications in peer-reviewed journals. Duplicate studies and abstracts from scientific meetings were removed. All of the retrieved studies, including references, were reviewed.
There were 908 vessels from 536 patients in 5 studies included in the analysis. A total of 365 (68.1%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 63.2 (9.5) years. The overall per-vessel diagnostic accuracy of FFR-CT was 81.9% (95% CI, 79.4%-84.4%). For vessels with FFR-CT values below 0.60, 0.60 to 0.70, 0.70 to 0.80, 0.80 to 0.90, and above 0.90, diagnostic accuracy of FFR-CT was 86.4% (95% CI, 78.0%-94.0%), 74.7% (95% CI, 71.9%-77.5%), 46.1% (95% CI, 42.9%-49.3%), 87.3% (95% CI, 85.1%-89.5%), and 97.9% (95% CI, 97.9%-98.8%), respectively. The 82% (overall) diagnostic accuracy threshold was met for FFR-CT values lower than 0.63 or above 0.83. More stringent 95% and 98% diagnostic accuracy thresholds were met for FFR-CT values lower than 0.53 or above 0.93 and lower than 0.47 or above 0.99, respectively.
Conclusions and Relevance
The diagnostic accuracy of FFR-CT varies markedly across the spectrum of disease. This analysis allows clinicians to interpret the diagnostic accuracy of individual FFR-CT results. In combination with patient-specific factors, clinicians can use FFR-CT to judge when the cost and risk of an invasive angiogram may safely be avoided.
Cook CM, Petraco R, Shun-Shin MJ, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomography–Derived Fractional Flow Reserve: A Systematic Review . JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2(7):803–810. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2017.1314
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: