Non-invasive fractional flow reserve measured by coronary computed tomography angiography (FFRCT) has demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy for detecting coronary artery disease (CAD) in selected patients in prior clinical trials. However, feasibility of FFRCT in unselected population have not been fully evaluated. Among 60 consecutive patients who had suspected significant CAD by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and were planned to undergo invasive coronary angiography, 48 patients were enrolled in this study comparing FFRCT with invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) without any exclusion criteria for the quality of CCTA image. FFRCT was measured in a blinded fashion by an independent core laboratory. FFRCT value was evaluable in 43 out of 48 (89.6 %) patients with high prevalence of severe calcification in CCTA images [calcium score (CS) >400: 40 %, and CS > 1000: 19 %). Per-vessel FFRCT value showed good correlation with invasive FFR value (Spearman’s rank correlation = 0.69, P < 0.001). The area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC) of FFRCT was 0.87. Per-vessel accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 68.6, 92.9, 52.4, 56.5, and 91.7 %, respectively. Even in eight patients (13 vessels) with extremely severely calcified lesions (CS > 1000), per-vessel FFRCT value showed a diagnostic performance similar to that in patients with CS ≤ 1000 (Spearman’s rank correlation = 0.81, P < 0.001). FFRCT could be measured in the majority of consecutive patients who had suspected significant CAD by CCTA in real clinical practice and demonstrated good diagnostic performance for detecting hemodynamically significant CAD even in patients with extremely severe calcified vessels.
Area under the receiver operator characteristics curve
Coronary artery disease
Coronary computed tomography angiography
Fractional flow reserve
Fractional flow reserve measured by coronary computed tomography angiography
Negative predictive value
Percutaneous coronary intervention
Positive predictive value
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We appreciated all the members of the CT and cardiac catheterization laboratory in Graduate school of cardiovascular medicine, Kyoto University and Morishita heart clinic for their contribution to this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
This study was a collaborative study of Kyoto University Hospital with HeartFlow Inc. and C.A. The study was funded by the unrestricted grant of Kyoto University Hospital. FFRCT was evaluated free of charge by HeartFlow Inc. C.A. Taylor is an employee and shareholder of HeartFlow Inc. All the other authors have no conflict of disclosures.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Zorlak A, Zorlak A, Thomassen A et al (2015) Patients with suspected coronary artery disease referred for examinations in the era of coronary computed tomography angiography. Am J Cardiol 116:344–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 359:2324–2336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD et al (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:2135–2144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Puchner SB, Liu T, Mayrhofer T et al (2014) High-risk plaque detected on coronary CT angiography predicts acute coronary syndromes independent of significant stenosis in acute chest pain: results from the ROMICAT-II trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 64:684–692CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Min JK, Shaw LJ, Berman DS (2010) The present state of coronary computed tomography angiography a process in evolution. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:957–965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Meijboom WB, Van Mieghem CA, van Pelt N et al (2008) Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses: computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography and correlation with fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:636–643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Schuijf JD, Wijns W, Jukema JW et al (2006) Relationship between noninvasive coronary angiography with multi-slice computed tomography and myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:2508–2514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Koo BK, Erglis A, Doh JH et al (2011) Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (diagnosis of ischemia-causing stenoses obtained via noninvasive fractional flow reserve) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 58:1989–1997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Norgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S et al (2014) Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (analysis of coronary blood flow using CT angiography: next steps). J Am Coll Cardiol 63:1145–1155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Min JK, Berman DS, Budoff MJ et al (2011) Rationale and design of the DeFACTO (determination of fractional flow reserve by anatomic computed tomographic AngiOgraphy) study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:301–309CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Gaur S, Achenbach S, Leipsic J et al (2013) Rationale and design of the HeartFlowNXT (HeartFlow analysis of coronary blood flow using CT angiography: NeXt sTeps) study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 7:279–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Abbara S, Arbab-Zadeh A, Callister TQ et al (2009) SCCT guidelines for performance of coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 3:190–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Leipsic J, Abbara S, Achenbach S et al (2014) SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 8:342–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ et al (1990) Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 15:827–832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Austen WG, Edwards JE, Frye RI et al (1975) A reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Grading of Coronary Artery Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery, American Heart Association. Circulation 51:5–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH et al (2009) Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 360:213–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH et al (2014) Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 371:1208–1217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B et al (2012) Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 367:991–1001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Adjedj J, De Bruyne B, Flore V et al (2016) Significance of Intermediate Values of Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease. Circulation 133:502–508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Task Force Members, Montalescot G, Sechtem U et al (2013) 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 34:2949–3003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genders TS, Steyerberg EW, Alkadhi H et al (2011) A clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: validation, updating, and extension. Eur Heart J 32:1316–1330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Leipsic J, Yang TH, Thompson A et al (2014) CT angiography (CTA) and diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve: results from the Determination of Fractional Flow Reserve by Anatomic CTA (DeFACTO) study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:989–994CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Norgaard BL, Gaur S, Leipsic J, Ito H et al (2015) Influence of coronary calcification on the diagnostic performance of CT angiography derived FFR in coronary artery disease: a substudy of the NXT trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 8:1045–1055CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar