Determinants of Rejection Rate for Coronary CT Angiography Fractional Flow Reserve Analysis.

Background Coronary artery fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from CT angiography (FFTCT) enables functional assessment of coronary stenosis. Prior clinical trials showed 13%-33% of coronary CT angiography studies had insufficient quality for quantitative analysis with FFRCT. Purpose To determine the rejection rate of FFRCT analysis and to determine factors associated with technically unsuccessful calculation of FFRCT. Materials and Methods Prospectively acquired coronary CT angiography scans submitted as part of the Assessing Diagnostic Value of Noninvasive FFRCT in Coronary Care (ADVANCE) registry (https://ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02499679) and coronary CT angiography series submitted for clinical analysis were included. The primary outcome was the FFRCT rejection rate (defined as an inability to perform quantitative analysis with FFRCT). Factors that were associated with FFRCT rejection rate were assessed with multiple linear regression. Results In the ADVANCE registry, FFRCT rejection rate due to inadequate image quality was 2.9% (80 of 2778 patients; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1%, 3.2%). In the 10 621 consecutive patients who underwent clinical analysis, the FFRCT rejection rate was 8.4% (n = 892; 95% CI: 6.2%, 7.2%; P < .001 vs the ADVANCE cohort). The main reason for the inability to perform FFRCT analysis was the presence of motion artifacts (63 of 80 [78%] and 729 of 892 [64%] in the ADVANCE and clinical cohorts, respectively). At multivariable analysis, section thickness in the ADVANCE (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI: 1.001, 1.09; P = .045) and clinical (OR, 1.03; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.04; P < .001) cohorts and heart rate in the ADVANCE (OR, 1.05; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.08; P < .001) and clinical (OR, 1.06; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.07; P < .001) cohorts were independent predictors of rejection. Conclusion The rates for technically unsuccessful CT-derived fractional flow reserve in the ADVANCE registry and in a large clinical cohort were 2.9% and 8.4%, respectively. Thinner CT section thickness and lower patient heart rate may increase rates of completion of CT fractional flow reserve analysis. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Sakuma in this issue.

[1]  Charles A. Taylor,et al.  Computational fluid dynamics applied to cardiac computed tomography for noninvasive quantification of fractional flow reserve: scientific basis. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[2]  Udo Hoffmann,et al.  Noninvasive FFR Derived From Coronary CT Angiography: Management and Outcomes in the PROMISE Trial. , 2017, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[3]  G. Hillis,et al.  64-Slice computed tomography angiography in the diagnosis and assessment of coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2008, Heart.

[4]  D. Andreini,et al.  Coronary artery disease: diagnostic accuracy of CT coronary angiography--a comparison of high and standard spatial resolution scanning. , 2014, Radiology.

[5]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Real-world clinical utility and impact on clinical decision-making of coronary computed tomography angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: lessons from the ADVANCE Registry , 2018, European heart journal.

[6]  K. Chinnaiyan,et al.  Coronary computed tomography angiography after stress testing: results from a multicenter, statewide registry, ACIC (Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging Consortium). , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  S. Achenbach,et al.  Influence of irregular heart rhythm on radiation exposure, image quality and diagnostic impact of cardiac computed tomography angiography in 4,339 patients. Data from the German Cardiac Computed Tomography Registry. , 2017, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[8]  D. Andreini,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous evaluation of coronary arteries and myocardial perfusion with single stress cardiac computed tomography acquisition compared to invasive coronary angiography plus invasive fractional flow reserve. , 2018, International journal of cardiology.

[9]  J. Leipsic,et al.  SCCT guidelines for the performance and acquisition of coronary computed tomographic angiography: A report of the society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee: Endorsed by the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI). , 2016, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[10]  Hatem Alkadhi,et al.  A clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: validation, updating, and extension. , 2011, European heart journal.

[11]  H. Bøtker,et al.  Influence of Coronary Calcification on the Diagnostic Performance of CT Angiography Derived FFR in Coronary Artery Disease: A Substudy of the NXT Trial. , 2015, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[12]  Werner Bautz,et al.  Randomized comparison of 64-slice single- and dual-source computed tomography coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease. , 2008, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[13]  Hiroshi Ito,et al.  Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps). , 2014, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  Filippo Cademartiri,et al.  Preserved diagnostic performance of dual-source CT coronary angiography with reduced radiation exposure and cancer risk. , 2009, Radiology.

[15]  S. Halliburton,et al.  Cardiac-Specific Conversion Factors to Estimate Radiation Effective Dose From Dose-Length Product in Computed Tomography. , 2018, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[16]  D. Andreini,et al.  Stress Computed Tomography Perfusion Versus Fractional Flow Reserve CT Derived in Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PERFECTION Study. , 2019, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[17]  S. Achenbach,et al.  SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. , 2014, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[18]  Amit R. Patel,et al.  Role of Perfusion at Rest in the Diagnosis of Myocardial Infarction Using Vasodilator Stress Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. , 2016, The American journal of cardiology.

[19]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Rationale, design and goals of the HeartFlow assessing diagnostic value of non-invasive FFRCT in Coronary Care (ADVANCE) registry. , 2017, Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography.

[20]  Matthias Gutberlet,et al.  Clinical outcomes of fractional flow reserve by computed tomographic angiography-guided diagnostic strategies vs. usual care in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: the prospective longitudinal trial of FFRCT: outcome and resource impacts study , 2015, European heart journal.