- Email: [email protected]
REPRODUCIBILITY OF INVASIVELY MEASURED AND NON-INVASIVELY COMPUTED FRACTIONAL FLOW RESERVE
A999 JACC April 1, 2014 Volume 63, Issue 12
Non Invasive Imaging Reproducibility of Invasively Measured and Non-Invasively Computed Fractional Flow Reserve Oral Contributions Room 146 A Sunday, March 30, 2014, 9:08 a.m.-9:19 a.m.
Session Title: Coronary Calcium and Computed Tomography: Breaking New Grounds Abstract Category: 18. Non Invasive Imaging: CT/Multimodality, Angiography, and Non-CT Angiography Presentation Number: 914-08 Authors: Sara Gaur, Hiram G. Bezerra, Evald H. Christiansen, Kentaro Tanaka, Jesper M. Jensen, Anne K. Kaltoft, Hans Erik Botker, Jens F. Lassen, Christian J. Terkelsen, Bjarne L. Norgaard, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR), in previous studies showing high reproducibility, is the gold standard for determining the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions. Non-invasive FFR computed from standard acquired coronary CT angiography (FFRCT) is a novel method for assessment of lesion-specific ischemia. The reproducibility of FFRCT has not yet been established. This study aims to determine the reproducibility of FFRCT. Methods: We performed repeated FFR measurements and repeated FFRCT analyses in 42 vessels in 25 patients suspected of coronary artery disease. The FFRCT analyses, based on the same CT dataset, were performed blinded by two different observers at a FFRCT core laboratory. FFR was performed twice for each vessel with repeated introduction of the pressure wire and new infusion of adenosine for each measurement. The FFR tracings were interpreted in a blinded fashion by two different observers at a FFR core laboratory. Results: Mean (SD) FFRCT was 0.89 (0.066). The mean difference between the first and second FFRCT calculation was 0.008 (0.026). Mean FFR was 0.91 (0.085). The mean difference between the first and second FFR reading was 0.001 (0.028). There was no statistically significant difference between reproducibility estimates of FFR and FFRCT (p=0.60). Conclusion: FFRCT demonstrated good reproducibility. There was no difference in overall reproducibility measures of FFRCT and FFR.
Non Invasive Imaging Reproducibility of Invasively Measured and Non-Invasively Computed Fractional Flow Reserve Oral Contributions Room 146 A Sunday, March 30, 2014, 9:08 a.m.-9:19 a.m.
Session Title: Coronary Calcium and Computed Tomography: Breaking New Grounds Abstract Category: 18. Non Invasive Imaging: CT/Multimodality, Angiography, and Non-CT Angiography Presentation Number: 914-08 Authors: Sara Gaur, Hiram G. Bezerra, Evald H. Christiansen, Kentaro Tanaka, Jesper M. Jensen, Anne K. Kaltoft, Hans Erik Botker, Jens F. Lassen, Christian J. Terkelsen, Bjarne L. Norgaard, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR), in previous studies showing high reproducibility, is the gold standard for determining the hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions. Non-invasive FFR computed from standard acquired coronary CT angiography (FFRCT) is a novel method for assessment of lesion-specific ischemia. The reproducibility of FFRCT has not yet been established. This study aims to determine the reproducibility of FFRCT. Methods: We performed repeated FFR measurements and repeated FFRCT analyses in 42 vessels in 25 patients suspected of coronary artery disease. The FFRCT analyses, based on the same CT dataset, were performed blinded by two different observers at a FFRCT core laboratory. FFR was performed twice for each vessel with repeated introduction of the pressure wire and new infusion of adenosine for each measurement. The FFR tracings were interpreted in a blinded fashion by two different observers at a FFR core laboratory. Results: Mean (SD) FFRCT was 0.89 (0.066). The mean difference between the first and second FFRCT calculation was 0.008 (0.026). Mean FFR was 0.91 (0.085). The mean difference between the first and second FFR reading was 0.001 (0.028). There was no statistically significant difference between reproducibility estimates of FFR and FFRCT (p=0.60). Conclusion: FFRCT demonstrated good reproducibility. There was no difference in overall reproducibility measures of FFRCT and FFR.