Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective Current fractional flow (FF) approaches in quantifying the hemodynamic severity of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) are invasive or require angiography. This study primarily evaluated a noninvasive FF method derived from magnetic resonance angiography (MRA-FF) against established reference standards, with an exploratory assessment of its ability to reflect hemodynamically relevant impairment. Methods In this retrospective study of 50 patients with ICAS, MRA-FF was computed from 3D vascular models using patient-specific flow boundary conditions. Agreement with invasive pressure-wire-derived FF (PW-FF, n = 18) and angiography-based FF (DSA-FF, n = 50) was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Equivalence to DSA-FF was evaluated using the two one-sided tests procedure (TOST; δ = ±0.05). An exploratory analysis examined the ability of MRA-FF to discriminate hypoperfusion using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis in the subset of patients with available perfusion imaging ( n = 38). Results MRA-FF showed moderate-to-good agreement with PW-FF (ICC = 0.743; 95% CI, 0.437–0.895) and good agreement with DSA-FF (ICC = 0.784; 95% CI, 0.649–0.871). Equivalence to DSA-FF was confirmed by TOST (90% CI of difference, −0.016 to 0.035; p < 0.01). In the perfusion subset, MRA-FF was lower in patients with hypoperfusion than in those without ( p = 0.022). The area under the ROC curve for discriminating hypoperfusion was 0.723 (95% CI, 0.54–0.90). Within this dataset, the exploratory optimal cutoff value was 0.855. Conclusion MRA-FF demonstrates good agreement with invasive and angiographic reference methods and shows the ability to discriminate hypoperfusion in an exploratory analysis. These findings support the feasibility and potential clinical utility of a fully noninvasive FF approach for functional assessment and hemodynamic characterization, although further external validation is required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: