Search

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) is a new technique for the diagnosis of ischemic coronary artery stenoses. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a novel on-site computed tomography-based fractional flow reserve algorithm (CT-FFR) compared with invasive FFR as the gold standard, and to determine whether its diagnostic performance is affected by interobserver variations in lumen segmentation. We enrolled 44 consecutive patients (64.6 ± 8.9 years, 34% female) with 60 coronary atherosclerotic lesions who underwent coronary CTA and invasive coronary angiography in 2 centers. An FFR value ≤0.8 was considered significant. Coronary CTA scans were evaluated by 2 expert readers, who manually adjusted the semiautomated coronary lumen segmentations for effective diameter stenosis (EDS) assessment and on-site CT-FFR simulation. The mean CT-FFR value was 0.77 ± 0.15, whereas the mean EDS was 43.6 ± 16.9%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CT-FFR versus EDS with a cutoff of 50% were the following: 91%, 72%, 63%, and 93% versus 52%, 87%, 69%, and 77%, respectively. The on-site CT-FFR demonstrated significantly better diagnostic performance compared with EDS (area under the curve 0.89 vs 0.74, respectively, p <0.001). The CT-FFR areas under the curve of the 2 readers did not show any significant difference (0.89 vs 0.88, p = 0.74). In conclusion, on-site CT-FFR simulation is feasible and has better diagnostic performance than anatomic stenosis assessment. Furthermore, the diagnostic performance of the on-site CT-FFR simulation algorithm does not depend on the readers' semiautomated lumen segmentation adjustments., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is used in patients with low-intermediate chest pain presenting to the emergency department for its reliability in excluding acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, its influence on medication modification in this setting is unclear. We sought to determine whether knowledge of CCTA-based coronary artery disease (CAD) was associated with change in statin and aspirin prescription. We used the CCTA arm of the Rule Out Myocardial Infarction using Computed Angiographic Tomography II multicenter, randomized control trial (R-II) and comparison cohort from the observational Rule Out Myocardial Infarction using Computed Angiographic Tomography I cohort (R-I). In R-II, subjects were randomly assigned to CCTA to guide decision making, whereas in R-I patients underwent CCTA with results blinded to caregivers and managed according to standard care. Our final cohort consisted of 277 subjects from R-I and 370 from R-II. ACS rate was similar (6.9% vs 6.2% respectively, p = 0.75). For subjects with CCTA-detected obstructive CAD without ACS, initiation of statin was significantly greater after disclosure of CCTA results (0% in R-I vs 20% in R-II, p = 0.009). Conversely, for subjects without CCTA-detected CAD, aspirin prescription was lower with disclosure of CCTA results (16% in R-I vs 4.8% in R-II, p = 0.001). However, only 68% of subjects in R-II with obstructive CAD were discharged on statin and 65% on aspirin. In conclusion, physician knowledge of CCTA results leads to improved alignment of aspirin and statin with the presence and severity of CAD although still many patients with CCTA-detected CAD are not discharged on aspirin or statin. Our findings suggest opportunity for practice improvement when CCTA is performed in the emergency department., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)