Kevin Mohee1, Jonathan P Mynard2,3,4,5, Gauravsingh Dhunnoo1, Rhodri Davies1, Perumal Nithiarasu6, Julian P Halcox7, Daniel R Obaid7. 1. Department of Cardiology, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK. 2. Heart Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia. 3. Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. 5. Department of Cardiology, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia. 6. Swansea University School of Engineering, Bay Campus, Swansea, UK. 7. Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
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.
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.
Authors: Nico H J Pijls; William F Fearon; Pim A L Tonino; Uwe Siebert; Fumiaki Ikeno; Bernhard Bornschein; Marcel van't Veer; Volker Klauss; Ganesh Manoharan; Thomas Engstrøm; Keith G Oldroyd; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A MacCarthy; Bernard De Bruyne Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-05-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Hans-Henrik Tilsted; Ole Ahlehoff; Christian J Terkelsen; Frants Pedersen; Cengiz Özcan; Troels H Jørgensen; Jens E Nielsen-Kudsk; Jan Ravkilde; Henrik Nissen; Sune A Pedersen; Ole Havndrup; Jens F Lassen Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Pamela S Douglas; Bernard De Bruyne; Gianluca Pontone; Manesh R Patel; Bjarne L Norgaard; Robert A Byrne; Nick Curzen; Ian Purcell; Matthias Gutberlet; Gilles Rioufol; Ulrich Hink; Herwig Walter Schuchlenz; Gudrun Feuchtner; Martine Gilard; Daniele Andreini; Jesper M Jensen; Martin Hadamitzky; Karen Chiswell; Derek Cyr; Alan Wilk; Furong Wang; Campbell Rogers; Mark A Hlatky Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael T Lu; Maros Ferencik; Rhonda S Roberts; Kerry L Lee; Alexander Ivanov; Elizabeth Adami; Daniel B Mark; Farouc A Jaffer; Jonathon A Leipsic; Pamela S Douglas; Udo Hoffmann Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-04-12
Authors: Pim A L Tonino; Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Uwe Siebert; Fumiaki Ikeno; Marcel van' t Veer; Volker Klauss; Ganesh Manoharan; Thomas Engstrøm; Keith G Oldroyd; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A MacCarthy; William F Fearon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bjarne L Nørgaard; Jonathon Leipsic; Sara Gaur; Sujith Seneviratne; Brian S Ko; Hiroshi Ito; Jesper M Jensen; Laura Mauri; Bernard De Bruyne; Hiram Bezerra; Kazuhiro Osawa; Mohamed Marwan; Christoph Naber; Andrejs Erglis; Seung-Jung Park; Evald H Christiansen; Anne Kaltoft; Jens F Lassen; Hans Erik Bøtker; Stephan Achenbach Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Pamela S Douglas; Gianluca Pontone; Mark A Hlatky; Manesh R Patel; Bjarne L Norgaard; Robert A Byrne; Nick Curzen; Ian Purcell; Matthias Gutberlet; Gilles Rioufol; Ulrich Hink; Herwig Walter Schuchlenz; Gudrun Feuchtner; Martine Gilard; Daniele Andreini; Jesper M Jensen; Martin Hadamitzky; Karen Chiswell; Derek Cyr; Alan Wilk; Furong Wang; Campbell Rogers; Bernard De Bruyne Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Jelmer Westra; Shengxian Tu; Simon Winther; Louise Nissen; Mai-Britt Vestergaard; Birgitte Krogsgaard Andersen; Emil Nielsen Holck; Camilla Fox Maule; Jane Kirk Johansen; Lene Nyhus Andreasen; Jo Krogsgaard Simonsen; Yimin Zhang; Steen Dalby Kristensen; Michael Maeng; Anne Kaltoft; Christian Juhl Terkelsen; Lars Romer Krusell; Lars Jakobsen; Johan H C Reiber; Jens Flensted Lassen; Morten Bøttcher; Hans Erik Bøtker; Evald Høj Christiansen; Niels Ramsing Holm Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Ali A Rostam-Alilou; Marziyeh Safari; Hamid R Jarrah; Ali Zolfagharian; Mahdi Bodaghi Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 3.421