Diagnostic performance of virtual fractional flow reserve derived from routine coronary angiography using segmentation free reduced order (1-dimensional) flow modelling.
Kevin Mohee, Jonathan P Mynard, Gauravsingh Dhunnoo, Rhodri Davies, Perumal Nithiarasu, Julian P Halcox, Daniel R Obaid
{"title":"Diagnostic performance of virtual fractional flow reserve derived from routine coronary angiography using segmentation free reduced order (1-dimensional) flow modelling.","authors":"Kevin Mohee, Jonathan P Mynard, Gauravsingh Dhunnoo, Rhodri Davies, Perumal Nithiarasu, Julian P Halcox, Daniel R Obaid","doi":"10.1177/2048004020967578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Fractional flow reserve (FFR) improves assessment of the physiological significance of coronary lesions compared with conventional angiography. However, it is an invasive investigation. We tested the performance of a virtual FFR (1D-vFFR) using routine angiographic images and a rapidly performed reduced order computational model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed in 102 with coronary lesions assessed by invasive FFR. A 1D-vFFR for each lesion was created using reduced order (one-dimensional) computational flow modelling derived from conventional angiographic images and patient specific estimates of coronary flow. The diagnostic accuracy of 1D-vFFR and QCA derived stenosis was compared against the gold standard of invasive FFR using area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>QCA revealed the mean coronary stenosis diameter was 44% ± 12% and lesion length 13 ± 7 mm. Following angiography calculation of the 1DvFFR took less than one minute. Coronary stenosis (QCA) had a significant but weak correlation with FFR (r = -0.2, p = 0.04) and poor diagnostic performance to identify lesions with FFR <0.80 (AUC 0.39, p = 0.09), (sensitivity - 58% and specificity - 26% at a QCA stenosis of 50%). In contrast, 1D-vFFR had a better correlation with FFR (r = 0.32, p = 0.01) and significantly better diagnostic performance (AUC 0.67, p = 0.007), (sensitivity - 92% and specificity - 29% at a 1D-vFFR of 0.7).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>1D-vFFR improves the determination of functionally significant coronary lesions compared with conventional angiography without requiring a pressure-wire or hyperaemia induction. It is fast enough to influence immediate clinical decision-making but requires further clinical evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":30457,"journal":{"name":"JRSM Cardiovascular Disease","volume":" ","pages":"2048004020967578"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2048004020967578","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JRSM Cardiovascular Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2048004020967578","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Introduction: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) improves assessment of the physiological significance of coronary lesions compared with conventional angiography. However, it is an invasive investigation. We tested the performance of a virtual FFR (1D-vFFR) using routine angiographic images and a rapidly performed reduced order computational model.
Methods: Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed in 102 with coronary lesions assessed by invasive FFR. A 1D-vFFR for each lesion was created using reduced order (one-dimensional) computational flow modelling derived from conventional angiographic images and patient specific estimates of coronary flow. The diagnostic accuracy of 1D-vFFR and QCA derived stenosis was compared against the gold standard of invasive FFR using area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC).
Results: QCA revealed the mean coronary stenosis diameter was 44% ± 12% and lesion length 13 ± 7 mm. Following angiography calculation of the 1DvFFR took less than one minute. Coronary stenosis (QCA) had a significant but weak correlation with FFR (r = -0.2, p = 0.04) and poor diagnostic performance to identify lesions with FFR <0.80 (AUC 0.39, p = 0.09), (sensitivity - 58% and specificity - 26% at a QCA stenosis of 50%). In contrast, 1D-vFFR had a better correlation with FFR (r = 0.32, p = 0.01) and significantly better diagnostic performance (AUC 0.67, p = 0.007), (sensitivity - 92% and specificity - 29% at a 1D-vFFR of 0.7).
Conclusions: 1D-vFFR improves the determination of functionally significant coronary lesions compared with conventional angiography without requiring a pressure-wire or hyperaemia induction. It is fast enough to influence immediate clinical decision-making but requires further clinical evaluation.