Coronary CT Angiography-derived Fractional Flow Reserve: Machine Learning Algorithm versus Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling

Purpose To compare two technical approaches for determination of coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR)-FFR derived from coronary CT angiography based on computational fluid dynamics (hereafter, FFR ) and FFR derived from coronary CT angiography based on...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:Radiology Ročník 288; číslo 1; s. 171291
Hlavní autoři: Tesche, Christian, De Cecco, Carlo N, Baumann, Stefan, Renker, Matthias, McLaurin, Tindal W, Duguay, Taylor M, Bayer, 2nd, Richard R, Steinberg, Daniel H, Grant, Katharine L, Canstein, Christian, Schwemmer, Chris, Schoebinger, Max, Itu, Lucian M, Rapaka, Saikiran, Sharma, Puneet, Schoepf, U Joseph
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: United States 01.07.2018
ISSN:1527-1315, 1527-1315
On-line přístup:Zjistit podrobnosti o přístupu
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí:Purpose To compare two technical approaches for determination of coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR)-FFR derived from coronary CT angiography based on computational fluid dynamics (hereafter, FFR ) and FFR derived from coronary CT angiography based on machine learning algorithm (hereafter, FFR )-against coronary CT angiography and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). Materials and Methods A total of 85 patients (mean age, 62 years ± 11 [standard deviation]; 62% men) who had undergone coronary CT angiography followed by invasive FFR were included in this single-center retrospective study. FFR values were derived on-site from coronary CT angiography data sets by using both FFR and FFR . The performance of both techniques for detecting lesion-specific ischemia was compared against visual stenosis grading at coronary CT angiography, QCA, and invasive FFR as the reference standard. Results On a per-lesion and per-patient level, FFR showed a sensitivity of 79% and 90% and a specificity of 94% and 95%, respectively, for detecting lesion-specific ischemia. Meanwhile, FFR resulted in a sensitivity of 79% and 89% and a specificity of 93% and 93%, respectively, on a per-lesion and per-patient basis (P = .86 and P = .92). On a per-lesion level, the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.89 for FFR and 0.89 for FFR showed significantly higher discriminatory power for detecting lesion-specific ischemia compared with that of coronary CT angiography (AUC, 0.61) and QCA (AUC, 0.69) (all P < .0001). Also, on a per-patient level, FFR (AUC, 0.91) and FFR (AUC, 0.91) performed significantly better than did coronary CT angiography (AUC, 0.65) and QCA (AUC, 0.68) (all P < .0001). Processing time for FFR was significantly shorter compared with that of FFR (40.5 minutes ± 6.3 vs 43.4 minutes ± 7.1; P = .042). Conclusion The FFR algorithm performs equally in detecting lesion-specific ischemia when compared with the FFR approach. Both methods outperform accuracy of coronary CT angiography and QCA in the detection of flow-limiting stenosis.
Bibliografie:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:1527-1315
1527-1315
DOI:10.1148/radiol.2018171291