Key result
Computational fluid dynamics-derived virtual indices correlate well and have good diagnostic accuracy compared to pressure wire-FFR for the functional assessment of coronary lesions.
Why the study?
Does blood flow simulation applied to coronary imaging provide accurate functional assessment of coronary lesions compared to pressure wire-FFR?
Does blood flow simulation applied to coronary imaging provide accurate functional assessment of coronary lesions compared to pressure wire-FFR?
Computational fluid dynamics applied to coronary imaging provides a promising non-invasive or wire-free alternative to pressure wire-FFR for functional assessment of coronary lesions, though outcome data are still needed.
Supports CFD indices for non-invasive FFR assessment; leaves open outcome trials before clinical adoption.
INTRODUCTION: Hemodynamic indices derived from measurements with the pressure wire (primarily fractional flow reserve [FFR]) have been established as a reliable tool for assessing coronary stenoses and improving clinical decision making. However, the use of the pressure wire constitutes a hurdle for the universal adoption of physiology-guided patient management. Technological advancements have enabled the large-scale application of blood flow simulation (computational fluid dynamics [CFD]) to medical imaging, thereby enabling the virtual assessment of coronary physiology. Areas covered: This review summarizes the stand-alone non-invasive (coronary computed tomographic imaging) and invasive (coronary angiography) imaging approaches which were initially used for predicting FFR, and focuses on the use of blood flow modeling for functional assessment of coronary lesions in clinical practice. Expert commentary: Validation studies of CFD-derived methodologies for functional assessment have shown that virtual indices correlate well and have good diagnostic accuracy compared to pressure wire-FFR despite inherent limitations of spatial resolution and assumptions regarding boundary conditions in flow modeling. Beyond point-to-point agreement with FFR, further studies are needed to demonstrate the clinical safety/efficacy of these computational tools regarding patient outcomes. Such evidence base could support the incorporation of these methodologies into routine patient management for decision making and reliable risk stratification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Papafaklis et al. (2017) conducted a review in Coronary stenoses. Blood flow simulation (computational fluid dynamics) vs. Pressure wire-FFR was evaluated. Computational fluid dynamics-derived virtual indices correlate well and have good diagnostic accuracy compared to pressure wire-FFR for the functional assessment of coronary lesions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: