Key result
FFRCT-P cuts stenosis underestimation error by ~83% vs FFRpullback in serial coronary artery disease.
Why the study?
FFR is theoretically limited when assessing individual stenoses in serially diseased coronary arteries, prompting evaluation of FFR pullback, conventional FFRCT, and a novel noninvasive planning tool (FFRCT-P).
Does a novel FFRCT-based PCI planning tool more accurately predict the true FFR contribution of individual stenoses in serially diseased coronary arteries compared to conventional FFR pullback and FFRCT?
Population
24 patients with angiographic serial coronary artery disease scheduled for PCI
Comparison
FFRCT-P vs FFR pullback vs conventional FFRCT compared with FFR true
Design
Prospective diagnostic accuracy study
Authors
Loading...
FFRCT-P may improve lesion-specific assessment in serial CAD; leaves open whether it changes PCI decisions or outcomes.
Does a novel FFRCT-based PCI planning tool more accurately predict the true FFR contribution of individual stenoses in serially diseased coronary arteries compared to conventional FFR pullback and FFRCT?
Effect estimate: mean difference of 0.05 (P<0.001)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.01% vs 0.06%
p-value: p=<0.001
A novel noninvasive FFRCT-based PCI planning tool significantly improves the prediction of true stenosis hemodynamic contribution in serially diseased coronary arteries compared to conventional invasive FFR pullback.
Modi et al. (2019) studied Serial coronary artery disease (n=24). FFRCT-P (noninvasive FFRCT-derived PCI planning tool) vs. Conventional FFRpullback and FFRCT was evaluated on True FFR contribution prediction after PCI (mean difference of 0.05 (P<0.001), p=<0.001). FFRCT-P reduced the underestimation of true stenosis contribution to a mean error of 7% compared to 42% error with FFRpullback in patients with serial coronary artery disease after PCI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: