Key result
FFR-CT availability links to ~7% fewer invasive angiograms versus CCTA alone without increasing mortality.
Why the study?
Using CCTA as a first-line investigation for CAD risks greater second-line heart tests and treatments at a cost to the patient and health system, prompting assessment of an AI diagnostic tool (FFR-CT) to improve decision-making.
Does FFR-CT reduce downstream testing and improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chest pain undergoing CCTA?
Cohort (n=90,553)
Yes
Does FFR-CT reduce downstream testing and improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chest pain undergoing CCTA?
Hazard Ratio: 0.93 (95% CI 0.9–0.97)
Absolute Event Rate: 14.9% vs 16%
p-value: p=<0.001
Implementation of FFR-CT in a national health system safely reduced the need for invasive coronary angiograms and noninvasive cardiac tests without increasing mortality at 2 years.
Supports safe FFR-CT rollout with fewer tests; leaves open outcome benefits in routine practice.
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major cause of ill health and death worldwide. Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) is the first-line investigation to detect CAD in symptomatic patients. This diagnostic approach risks greater second-line heart tests and treatments at a cost to the patient and health system. The National Health Service funded use of an artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic tool, computed tomography (CT)-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-CT), in patients with chest pain to improve physician decision-making and reduce downstream tests. This observational cohort study assessed the impact of FFR-CT on cardiovascular outcomes by including all patients investigated with CCTA during the national AI implementation program at 27 hospitals (CCTA n = 90,553 and FFR-CT n = 7,863). FFR-CT was safe, with no difference in all-cause (n = 1,134 (3.2%) versus 1,612 (2.9%), adjusted-hazard ratio (aHR) 1.00 (0.93-1.08), P = 0.97) or cardiovascular mortality (n = 465 (1.3%) versus 617 (1.1%), aHR 0.96 (0.85-1.08), P = 0.48), while reducing invasive coronary angiograms (n = 5,720 (16%) versus 8,183 (14.9%), aHR 0.93 (0.90-0.97), P < 0.001) and noninvasive cardiac tests (189/1,000 patients versus 167/1,000), P < 0.001). Implementation of an AI-diagnostic tool as part of a health intervention program was safe and beneficial to the patient pathway and health system with fewer cardiac tests at 2 years.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fairbairn et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Suspected stable symptomatic coronary artery disease (n=90,553). FFR-CT (computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve) availability vs. FFR-CT unavailable (pre-implementation period) was evaluated on Invasive coronary angiograms (ICA) performed at 2 years (aHR 0.93, 95% CI 0.90-0.97, p=<0.001). The availability of FFR-CT safely reduced the rate of invasive coronary angiograms (aHR 0.93) and noninvasive cardiac tests at 2 years without increasing all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: