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

Aims In symptomatic patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), computed tomographic angiography (CTA) improves patient selection for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) compared with functional testing. The impact of measuring fractional flow reserve by CTA (FFRCT) is unknown. Methods and results At 11 sites, 584 patients with new onset chest pain were prospectively assigned to receive either usual testing (n = 287) or CTA/FFRCT (n = 297). Test interpretation and care decisions were made by the clinical care team. The primary endpoint was the percentage of those with planned ICA in whom no significant obstructive CAD (no stenosis ≥50% by core laboratory quantitative analysis or invasive FFR < 0.80) was found at ICA within 90 days. Secondary endpoints including death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization were independently and blindly adjudicated. Subjects averaged 61 ± 11 years of age, 40% were female, and the mean pre-test probability of obstructive CAD was 49 ± 17%. Among those with intended ICA (FFRCT-guided = 193; usual care = 187), no obstructive CAD was found at ICA in 24 (12%) in the CTA/FFRCT arm and 137 (73%) in the usual care arm (risk difference 61%, 95% confidence interval 53–69, P< 0.0001), with similar mean cumulative radiation exposure (9.9 vs. 9.4 mSv, P = 0.20). Invasive coronary angiography was cancelled in 61% after receiving CTA/FFRCT results. Among those with intended non-invasive testing, the rates of finding no obstructive CAD at ICA were 13% (CTA/FFRCT) and 6% (usual care; P = 0.95). Clinical event rates within 90 days were low in usual care and CTA/FFRCT arms. Conclusions Computed tomographic angiography/fractional flow reserve by CTA was a feasible and safe alternative to ICA and was associated with a significantly lower rate of invasive angiography showing no obstructive CAD.

[1]  Scot-Heart Investigators,et al.  CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): an open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[2]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. , 2013, European heart journal.

[3]  Sanjay Kaul,et al.  Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  D. Andreini,et al.  Rationale and design of the Prospective LongitudinAl Trial of FFRCT: Outcome and Resource IMpacts study. , 2015, American heart journal.

[5]  D. Rubin,et al.  Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods That Incorporate the Propensity Score , 1985 .

[6]  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.

[7]  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.

[8]  C. V. van Mieghem,et al.  Revascularization Decisions in Patients With Stable Angina and Intermediate Lesions: Results of the International Survey on Interventional Strategy , 2014, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[9]  R. Morin,et al.  Ionizing Radiation in Cardiac Imaging: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention , 2009, Circulation.

[10]  B. Gersh,et al.  ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease — addenda The Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology , 2013 .

[11]  Eric E. Smith,et al.  2014 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Cardiovascular Endpoint Events in Clinical Trials: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Cardiovascular Endpoints Data Standards). , 2015, Circulation.

[12]  Grace A Lin,et al.  Frequency of stress testing to document ischemia prior to elective percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2008, JAMA.

[13]  P. Douglas,et al.  Physician Decision Making and Trends in the Use of Cardiac Stress Testing in the United States , 2014, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  Michael J Pencina,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. , 2012, JAMA.

[15]  Nikola Jagic,et al.  Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  U. Siebert,et al.  Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  J. J. Gerbrands,et al.  Coronary Artery Dimensions from Cineangiograms-Methodology and Validation of a Computer-Assisted Analysis Procedure , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[18]  Laura Mauri,et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention , 2013, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[19]  Laura Mauri,et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. , 2011, Circulation.

[20]  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.

[21]  J. Reiber,et al.  Clinical validation of the new T‐ and Y‐Shape models for the quantitative analysis of coronary bifurcations: An interobserver variability study , 2013, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[22]  A. Dunning,et al.  Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) study. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

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

[24]  E. Yow,et al.  A selection of recent, original research papers , 2015, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology.

[25]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Comparison of Clinical Interpretation With Visual Assessment and Quantitative Coronary Angiography in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Contemporary Practice: The Assessing Angiography (A2) Project , 2013, Circulation.

[26]  Manesh R. Patel,et al.  Prevalence and predictors of nonobstructive coronary artery disease identified with coronary angiography in contemporary clinical practice. , 2014, American heart journal.