Key result
CT-FFR improves diagnostic accuracy for significant CAD by ~21% over CCTA during TAVI work-up.
Why the study?
Invasive coronary angiography during TAVI work-up might be partially redundant with CCTA, and CT-FFR could improve CCTA's diagnostic accuracy for CAD.
Does CT-FFR improve the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA for detecting significant coronary artery disease in patients undergoing TAVI work-up?
Cross-Sectional (n=338)
Does CT-FFR improve the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA for detecting significant coronary artery disease in patients undergoing TAVI work-up?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.90 vs 0.84
Absolute Event Rate: 87.6% vs 66.9%
p-value: p=0.02
Adding CT-FFR to CCTA during routine TAVI work-up significantly improves diagnostic accuracy for coronary artery disease and could safely avoid invasive coronary angiography in over half of patients.
CT-FFR may refine CAD assessment in TAVI work-up; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before changing angiography practice.
Objectives To assess the diagnostic performance of CT-FFR for the diagnosis of CAD in the work-up for TAVI. Background Work-up for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) currently utilizes computed tomography (CT) to evaluate annulus diameter and peripheral vascular access, plus invasive coronary angiography (ICA) to assess significant coronary artery disease (CAD). ICA might partially be redundant with the use of Coronary CT Angiography (CCTA). Prior studies found improvement of the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA by use of CT derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR). Methods Consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis who underwent TAVI work-up between 2015–2019 were included in this cross-sectional study. All patients underwent CCTA and ICA within 3 months and diagnostic performance of both CCTA and CT-FFR were assessed using ICA as reference. Results Seventy-six of the 338 patients included in the analysis had ≥1 significant coronary stenosis at ICA. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy per-patient were 76.9%, 64.5%, 34.0%, 92.1% and 66.9% for CCTA and 84.6%, 88.3%, 63.2%, 96.0% and 87.6% for CT-FFR. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic-curve significantly differ between CCTA and CT-FFR (0.84 versus 0.90 p=0.02). A CT-FFR guided approach could avoid ICA in 57.1% versus 43.6% using CCTA. Conclusions CT-FFR significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA without additional testing and increases the proportion of patients in whom ICA could have been safely avoided It has the potential to be integrated in the current clinical work-up for TAVI for diagnosing stable CAD requiring treatment. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peper et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis (n=338). CT-FFR vs. CCTA was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy for detecting significant coronary stenosis using invasive coronary angiography as reference (AUC 0.90 vs 0.84, p=0.02). CT-FFR significantly improved diagnostic accuracy compared to CCTA for detecting significant coronary artery disease in TAVI work-up (AUC 0.90 vs 0.84, p=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: