Ke Shi1, Feng-Feng Yang2, Nuo Si1, Chen-Tao Zhu1, Na Li1, Xiao-Lin Dong1, Yan Guo3, Tong Zhang1. 1. Department of Radiology, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. 2. Department of Radiology, The Second Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China. 3. GE Healthcare, Beijing, China.
Abstract
Background: Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography (CT-FFR) can be used to noninvasively evaluate the functions of coronary arteries and has been widely welcomed in the field of cardiovascular research. However, whether different image reconstruction schemes have an effect on CT-FFR analysis through single- and multiple-cardiac periodic images in the same patient has not been investigated. Methods: This study retrospectively enrolled 122 patients who underwent 320-row computed tomography (CT) examination with both single- and multiple-cardiac periodic reconstruction schemes; a total of 366 coronary arteries were analyzed. The lowest CT-FFR values of each vessel and the poststenosis CT-FFR values of the lesion-specific coronary artery were measured using the two reconstruction techniques. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare differences in CT-FFR values between the two reconstruction techniques. Spearman correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationship between CT-FFR values derived using the two methods. Bland-Altman and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were performed to evaluate the consistency of CT-FFR values. Results: In all blood vessels, the lowest CT-FFR values showed no significant differences between the two reconstruction techniques in the left anterior descending artery (LAD; P=0.65), left circumflex artery (LCx; P=0.46), or right coronary artery (RCA; P=0.22). In blood vessels with atherosclerotic plaques, the poststenosis CT-FFR values (2 cm distal to the maximum stenosis) exhibited no significant differences between the two reconstruction techniques in the LAD (P=0.78), LCx (P=1.00), or RCA (P=1.00). The mean CT-FFR values of single- and multiple-cardiac periodic images showed excellent correlation and minimal bias in all groups. Conclusions: CT-FFR analysis based on an artificial intelligence deep learning neural network is stable and not affected by the type of 320-row CT reconstruction technology. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Background: Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography (CT-FFR) can be used to noninvasively evaluate the functions of coronary arteries and has been widely welcomed in the field of cardiovascular research. However, whether different image reconstruction schemes have an effect on CT-FFR analysis through single- and multiple-cardiac periodic images in the same patient has not been investigated. Methods: This study retrospectively enrolled 122 patients who underwent 320-row computed tomography (CT) examination with both single- and multiple-cardiac periodic reconstruction schemes; a total of 366 coronary arteries were analyzed. The lowest CT-FFR values of each vessel and the poststenosis CT-FFR values of the lesion-specific coronary artery were measured using the two reconstruction techniques. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare differences in CT-FFR values between the two reconstruction techniques. Spearman correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationship between CT-FFR values derived using the two methods. Bland-Altman and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were performed to evaluate the consistency of CT-FFR values. Results: In all blood vessels, the lowest CT-FFR values showed no significant differences between the two reconstruction techniques in the left anterior descending artery (LAD; P=0.65), left circumflex artery (LCx; P=0.46), or right coronary artery (RCA; P=0.22). In blood vessels with atherosclerotic plaques, the poststenosis CT-FFR values (2 cm distal to the maximum stenosis) exhibited no significant differences between the two reconstruction techniques in the LAD (P=0.78), LCx (P=1.00), or RCA (P=1.00). The mean CT-FFR values of single- and multiple-cardiac periodic images showed excellent correlation and minimal bias in all groups. Conclusions: CT-FFR analysis based on an artificial intelligence deep learning neural network is stable and not affected by the type of 320-row CT reconstruction technology. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Kenneth R Holmes; Tim A Fonte; Jonathan Weir-McCall; Malcolm Anastasius; Philipp Blanke; Geoffrey W Payne; Jen Ellis; Darra T Murphy; Charles Taylor; Jonathon A Leipsic; Stephanie L Sellers Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Niels Peter Rønnow Sand; Louise Nissen; Simon Winther; Steffen E Petersen; Jelmer Westra; Evald H Christiansen; Pia Larsen; Niels R Holm; Christin Isaksen; Grazina Urbonaviciene; Lone Deibjerg; Majed Husain; Kristian K Thomsen; Allan Rohold; Hans Erik Bøtker; Morten Bøttcher Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-08-14
Authors: Jakob De Geer; Adriaan Coenen; Young-Hak Kim; Mariusz Kruk; Christian Tesche; U Joseph Schoepf; Cezary Kepka; Dong Hyun Yang; Koen Nieman; Anders Persson Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Peng Peng Xu; Jian Hua Li; Fan Zhou; Meng Di Jiang; Chang Sheng Zhou; Meng Jie Lu; Chun Xiang Tang; Xiao Lei Zhang; Liu Yang; Yuan Xiu Zhang; Yi Ning Wang; Jia Yin Zhang; Meng Meng Yu; Yang Hou; Min Wen Zheng; Bo Zhang; Dai Min Zhang; Yan Yi; Lei Xu; Xiu Hua Hu; Hui Liu; Guang Ming Lu; Qian Qian Ni; Long Jiang Zhang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alex L Huang; Paul L Maggiore; Richard A Brown; Mansi Turaga; Anna B Reid; Jacob Merkur; Philipp Blanke; Jonathon A Leipsic Journal: Can Assoc Radiol J Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: Michael L Steigner; Dimitrios Mitsouras; Amanda G Whitmore; Hansel J Otero; Chunliang Wang; Orla Buckley; Noah A Levit; Alia Z Hussain; Tianxi Cai; Richard T Mather; Orjan Smedby; Marcelo F DiCarli; Frank J Rybicki Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-12-31 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Christian Tesche; Carlo N De Cecco; Stefan Baumann; Matthias Renker; Tindal W McLaurin; Taylor M Duguay; Richard R Bayer; Daniel H Steinberg; Katharine L Grant; Christian Canstein; Chris Schwemmer; Max Schoebinger; Lucian M Itu; Saikiran Rapaka; Puneet Sharma; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fabian Ammon; Maximilian Moshage; Silvia Smolka; Markus Goeller; Daniel O Bittner; Stephan Achenbach; Mohamed Marwan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-11-04 Impact factor: 7.034