BACKGROUND: Non-invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been increasingly used in the clinical workflow to assist clinical decision-making for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This clinical study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of coronary stenosis assessed by a non-invasive FFR analysis method (termed AccuFFRangio) based on invasive coronary angiography (ICA). It is a blinded, self-controlled, retrospective, and dual-center clinical investigation study. METHODS: Coronary angiography data and the related information of 320 patients with 320 vessels were collected, and AccuFFRangio was used to assess the FFR for these patients. Compared with the wire-measured FFR values, we evaluated AccuFFRangio performance by its accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for AccuFFRangio in identifying hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis were 93.3%, 92.6%, 93.5%, 84.3%, and 97.1%, respectively. The direct correlation between computed AccuFFRangio and measured FFR was 0.812 (P<0.001), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value of AccuFFRangio was 0.96. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical study demonstrates the efficiency and accuracy of AccuFFRangio for clinical implementation when using invasive wire-measured FFR as a reference. Further validation is required in a large prospective multicenter study. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been increasingly used in the clinical workflow to assist clinical decision-making for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This clinical study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of coronary stenosis assessed by a non-invasive FFR analysis method (termed AccuFFRangio) based on invasive coronary angiography (ICA). It is a blinded, self-controlled, retrospective, and dual-center clinical investigation study. METHODS: Coronary angiography data and the related information of 320 patients with 320 vessels were collected, and AccuFFRangio was used to assess the FFR for these patients. Compared with the wire-measured FFR values, we evaluated AccuFFRangio performance by its accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for AccuFFRangio in identifying hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis were 93.3%, 92.6%, 93.5%, 84.3%, and 97.1%, respectively. The direct correlation between computed AccuFFRangio and measured FFR was 0.812 (P<0.001), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value of AccuFFRangio was 0.96. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical study demonstrates the efficiency and accuracy of AccuFFRangio for clinical implementation when using invasive wire-measured FFR as a reference. Further validation is required in a large prospective multicenter study. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Bon-Kwon Koo; Andrejs Erglis; Joon-Hyung Doh; David V Daniels; Sanda Jegere; Hyo-Soo Kim; Allison Dunning; Tony DeFrance; Alexandra Lansky; Jonathan Leipsic; James K Min Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Manesh R Patel; Bjarne Linde Nørgaard; Timothy A Fairbairn; Koen Nieman; Takashi Akasaka; Daniel S Berman; Gilbert L Raff; Lynne M Hurwitz Koweek; Gianluca Pontone; Tomohiro Kawasaki; Niels Peter Rønnow Sand; Jesper M Jensen; Tetsuya Amano; Michael Poon; Kristian A Øvrehus; Jeroen Sonck; Mark G Rabbat; Sarah Mullen; Bernard De Bruyne; Campbell Rogers; Hitoshi Matsuo; Jeroen J Bax; Jonathon Leipsic Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-03-17
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: Udo Hoffmann; Quynh A Truong; David A Schoenfeld; Eric T Chou; Pamela K Woodard; John T Nagurney; J Hector Pope; Thomas H Hauser; Charles S White; Scott G Weiner; Shant Kalanjian; Michael E Mullins; Issam Mikati; W Frank Peacock; Pearl Zakroysky; Douglas Hayden; Alexander Goehler; Hang Lee; G Scott Gazelle; Stephen D Wiviott; Jerome L Fleg; James E Udelson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ryo Nakazato; Hyung-Bok Park; Daniel S Berman; Heidi Gransar; Bon-Kwon Koo; Andrejs Erglis; Fay Y Lin; Allison M Dunning; Matthew J Budoff; Jennifer Malpeso; Jonathon Leipsic; James K Min Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: N H Pijls; B De Bruyne; K Peels; P H Van Der Voort; H J Bonnier; J J Bartunek J Koolen; J J Koolen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-06-27 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: Paul D Morris; Desmond Ryan; Allison C Morton; Richard Lycett; Patricia V Lawford; D Rodney Hose; Julian P Gunn Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Timothy A Fairbairn; Koen Nieman; Takashi Akasaka; Bjarne L Nørgaard; Daniel S Berman; Gilbert Raff; Lynne M Hurwitz-Koweek; Gianluca Pontone; Tomohiro Kawasaki; Niels Peter Sand; Jesper M Jensen; Tetsuya Amano; Michael Poon; Kristian Øvrehus; Jeroen Sonck; Mark Rabbat; Sarah Mullen; Bernard De Bruyne; Campbell Rogers; Hitoshi Matsuo; Jeroen J Bax; Jonathon Leipsic; Manesh R Patel Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 29.983