P6183Diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography-derived fractional flow reserve in patients with acute myocardial infarction and moderate non-culprit coronary stenosis

• Published in: European heart journal Vol. 40; no. Supplement_1
• Main Authors: Jablonkai, B, Ahres, A, Ruboczky, G, Nagybaczoni, B, Oze, A, Balogh, Z S D, Schrancz, A, Astrid, A, Szilveszter, B, Kolossvary, M, Simon, J, Merkely, B, Maurovich-Horvat, P, Andrassy, P
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford University Press 01-10-2019
• Subjects: CT-derived FFR
• ISSN: 0195-668X; 1522-9645
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz746.0789

Abstract
Background
Revascularisation of significant non-culprit coronary lesions (NCL) may improve clinical outcome in patients with myocardial infarction and multi vessel disease, however management of moderate NCLs is still controversial. Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) are accepted methods to detect myocardial ischemia, nevertheless coronary CT angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) is a new modality, which has not been widely investigated to date in patients with NCLs.
Purpose
Our aim was to determine the diagnostic performance of CT-FFR compared to DSE and invasive FFR.
Methods
In this prospective trial, DSE, FFR and CT-FFR were performed in every patient with MI and at least one moderate NCL (30–70% diameter stenosis by visual assessment). New or worsening wall motion abnormality in at least two contiguous myocardial segments on DSE, and FFR value<0.8 in invasive FFR and CT-FFR as well were determined as abnormal. In comparison, DSE and FFR were regarded as reference standard methods.
Results
Between March of 2017 and December of 2018, 51 patients (58.2±10.4 years, 74.5% male) were enrolled and 71 NCLs (40 LAD, 13 LCx, 18 RCA) were investigated. Dobutamine stress echocardiography, FFR and CT-FFR were positive in 30.9%, 32.3% and 22.5% of all lesions, respectively. FFR values were higher with CT-FFR compared to invasive FFR (0.85±0.11 vs. 0.83±0.08, p<0.05). Compared to DSE, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy of CT-FFR were 40.9%, 85.7%, 56.2%, 76.3% and 71.8%, respectively. The same values were 39.1%, 85.4%, 56.2%, 74.5% and 70.4% compared to invasive FFR, respectively. Correspondence of CT-FFR with DSE (k=0.29) and with FFR (k=0.27) was weak.
Conclusion
This is the first study that compares the three modalities in the evaluation of moderate NCLs. Our results demonstrated moderate diagnostic accuracy, excellent specificity, poor sensitivity and PPV and acceptable NPV of CT-FFR compared to DSE and FFR. At this stage, CT-FFR is probably not accurate enough to determine revascularisation strategy of moderate NCLs as a single non-invasive method.