Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 5, 2025
Ultrasound Based Assessment of Coronary Artery Flow and Coronary Flow Reserve Using the Pressure Overload Model in Mice
Published on: April 13, 2015
Optimal diagnostic approach for using CT-derived quantitative flow ratio in patients with stenosis on coronary
Jonathan N Dahl1, Laust D Rasmussen2, Daixin Ding3
1Department of Cardiology, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Background:
Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived quantitative flow ratio (CT-QFR) is an on-site non-invasive technique estimating invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). This study assesses the diagnostic performance of using most distal CT-QFR versus lesion-specific CT-QFR approach for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).
Methods:
Prospectively enrolled de novo chest pain patients (n = 445) with ≥50 % visual diameter stenosis on CCTA were referred for invasive evaluation. On-site CT-QFR was analyzed post-hoc blinded to angiographic data and obtained as both most distal (MD-QFR) and lesion-specific CT-QFR (LS-QFR). Abnormal CT-QFR was defined as ≤0.80. Hemodynamically obstructive CAD was defined as invasive FFR ≤0.80 or ≥70 % diameter stenosis by 3D-quantitative coronary angiography.
Results:
In total 404/445 patients had paired CT-QFR and invasive analyses of whom 149/404 (37 %) had hemodynamically obstructive CAD. MD-QFR and LS-QFR classified 188 (47 %) and 165 (41 %) patients as abnormal, respectively. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for MD-QFR was 0.83 vs. 0.85 for LS-QFR, p = 0.01. Sensitivities for MD-QFR and LS-QFR were 80 % (95%CI: 73-86) vs. 77 % (95%CI: 69-83), p = 0.03, respectively, and specificities were 73 % (95%CI: 67-78) vs. 80 % (95%CI: 75-85), p < 0.01, respectively. Positive predictive values for MD-QFR and LS-QFR were 63 % vs. 69 %, p < 0.01, respectively, and negative predictive values for MD-QFR and LS-QFR were 86 % vs. 85 %, p = 0.39, respectively).
Conclusion:
Using a lesion-specific CT-QFR approach has superior discrimination of hemodynamically obstructive CAD compared to a most distal CT-QFR approach. CT-QFR identified most cases of hemodynamically obstructive CAD while a normal CT-QFR excluded hemodynamically obstructive CAD in the majority of patients.
