Key result
CT-FFR detects abnormal PET myocardial perfusion with an AUC of ~0.84 in motion-free CCTA.
Why the study?
While CCTA provides anatomical assessment of coronary stenoses, its ability to determine their functional significance is limited. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of CT-FFR for lesion-specific ischaemia assessment using 15 O-water PET myocardial perfusion imaging as the reference standard.
Does CT-FFR accurately predict functionally significant myocardial ischaemia detected by 15O-water PET perfusion imaging in patients with suspected CAD and inconclusive CCTA?
Cohort (n=165)
CT-FFR analyses were blinded to both the calcium score and PET perfusion results; CCTA analysis was blinded to the results of other imaging modalities
No
Does CT-FFR accurately predict functionally significant myocardial ischaemia detected by 15O-water PET perfusion imaging in patients with suspected CAD and inconclusive CCTA?
CT-FFR does not improve diagnostic accuracy over CCTA alone in an unselected population, but achieves high diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.836, sensitivity 85%, specificity 87%) against 15O-water PET when restricted to motion-free CCTA scans with >50% stenosis measured 20 mm distal to the lesion.
Aims Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. While coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) provides anatomical assessment of coronary stenoses, its ability to determine their functional significance is limited. Computed tomography‐derived fractional flow reserve (CT‐FFR) has emerged as a non‐invasive method for lesion‐specific ischaemia assessment. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of CT‐FFR using 15 O‐water positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging as the reference standard. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed 193 patients who underwent hybrid CCTA and 15 O‐water PET at Kuopio University Hospital between 2017 and 2022. Patients with low‐to‐moderate pretest probability of CAD in whom CAD could not be ruled out by CCTA were eligible. After exclusions, 165 patients were included. CT‐FFR values were calculated using a research prototype algorithm and compared with PET‐derived perfusion abnormalities. In the overall cohort, CT‐FFR showed moderate diagnostic performance, with area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.672–0.740. In a subgroup of 83 patients with high‐quality CCTA and stenosis >50%, diagnostic performance improved substantially (AUC 0.836). Using a CT‐FFR threshold of 0.80, sensitivity and specificity were 85% and 87%, respectively. Conclusion In an unselected clinical population referred for PET perfusion imaging after CCTA, CT‐FFR did not significantly improve diagnostic performance compared with CCTA alone. However, in patients with high‐quality CCTA and obstructive coronary stenoses, CT‐FFR demonstrated good accuracy for identifying functionally significant disease, supporting its role as a complementary non‐invasive diagnostic tool.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
J et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) with low-to-moderate pretest probability (n=165). Computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) vs. 15O-water positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (reference standard) and conventional CCTA was evaluated on Diagnostic performance (AUC) for detecting abnormal myocardial perfusion (hyperaemic MBF < 2.3 mL/min/g) on 15O-water PET (AUC 0.672-0.740 in overall cohort; AUC 0.836 in high-quality CCTA with >50% stenosis subgroup, p=<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: