Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 1, 2026
Evaluation of a Novel Laser-assisted Coronary Anastomotic Connector - the Trinity Clip - in a Porcine Off-pump Bypass Model
Published on: November 24, 2014
Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve : A Systematic Review
Christopher M Cook1, Ricardo Petraco1, Matthew J Shun-Shin1
1Imperial College London, International Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and Lung Institute, London, England.
Importance:
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.
Objective:
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.
Evidence Review:
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.
Findings:
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.
