Key result
Computed tomographic angiography-based flow resistance coefficients were significantly higher in patients with invasive FFR ≤0.8 compared to those with FFR >0.8 (p<0.05).
Why the study?
FFRct uses hypothetical hemodynamic flow conditions that may cause mismatches with invasive fractional flow reserve, necessitating additional computational fluid dynamics-based criteria to improve non-invasive diagnostic accuracy.
Does computed tomographic angiography-based flow resistance coefficient (FRCct) accurately identify hemodynamically significant left anterior descending artery stenosis compared to invasive fractional flow reserve?
Observational (n=30)
Does computed tomographic angiography-based flow resistance coefficient (FRCct) accurately identify hemodynamically significant left anterior descending artery stenosis compared to invasive fractional flow reserve?
p-value: p=<0.05
FRCct is a novel non-invasive supplementary method that can differentiate hemodynamically significant from non-significant LAD stenosis.
As a non-invasive diagnosis method, computed tomographic angiography–based computational fluid dynamics is used to estimate fractional flow reserve of coronary arteries (FFRct). However, FFRct uses hypothetical hemodynamic flow conditions, and thus FFRct might cause mismatches (fractional flow reserve > 0.8) with invasive fractional flow reserve (≤0.8). Additional computational fluid dynamics–based criteria are still needed to improve the accuracy of non-invasive diagnosis. In this article, a new concept of computed tomographic angiography–based flow resistance coefficient (FRCct) is proposed, and it tests pressure drops at coronary arteries under different blood flow rates and returns two constant flow resistance coefficients (A and B) for each artery. Specifically, 30 patients who were suspected to meet the treatment indication of their left anterior descending stenosis were tested with invasive fractional flow reserve and FRCct. The invasive fractional flow reserve divided the patients into a safe group (invasive fractional flow reserve > 0.8, 15 patients) and a sick group (invasive fractional flow reserve ≤ 0.8, 15 patients). A following FRCct indicated that the flow resistance coefficient always displayed a low value (A = 0.0039 ± 2.7e–5; B = 0.079 ± 0.0025) for the safe group, while the flow resistance coefficient always exhibited a high value (A = 0.0235 ± 0.001; B = 0.270 ± 0.108) for the sick group. The results of the statistical test indicated that the p-value was less than 0.05 for both A and B of the two groups. In conclusion, in addition to the FFRct, FRCct is a supplementary non-invasive method to evaluate the treatment indication of left anterior descending stenosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Left anterior descending artery stenosis (n=30). Computed tomographic angiography-based flow resistance coefficient (FRCct) vs. Invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) was evaluated on Flow resistance coefficients (A and B) (p=<0.05). Computed tomographic angiography-based flow resistance coefficients were significantly higher in patients with invasive FFR ≤0.8 compared to those with FFR >0.8 (p<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: