{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["97(4)"],"submitter":["Bom MJ"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Objectives</h4>This study aimed to investigate the performance of computed tomography derived fractional flow reserve based interactive planner (FFR<sub>CT</sub> planner) to predict the physiological benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as defined by invasive post-PCI FFR.<h4>Background</h4>Advances in FFR<sub>CT</sub> technology have enabled the simulation of hyperemic pressure changes after virtual removal of stenoses.<h4>Methods</h4>In 56 patients (63 vessels) invasive FFR measurements before and after PCI were obtained and FFR<sub>CT</sub> was calculated using pre-PCI coronary CT angiography. Subsequently, FFR<sub>CT</sub> and invasive coronary angiography models were aligned allowing virtual removal of coronary stenoses on pre-PCI FFR<sub>CT</sub> models in the same locations as PCI was performed. Relationships between invasive FFR and FFR<sub>CT</sub> , between post-PCI FFR and FFR<sub>CT</sub> planner, and between delta FFR and delta FFR<sub>CT</sub> were evaluated.<h4>Results</h4>Pre PCI, invasive FFR was 0.65 ± 0.12 and FFR<sub>CT</sub> was 0.64 ± 0.13 (p = .34) with a mean difference of 0.015 (95% CI: -0.23-0.26). Post-PCI invasive FFR was 0.89 ± 0.07 and FFR<sub>CT</sub> planner was 0.85 ± 0.07 (p < .001) with a mean difference of 0.040 (95% CI: -0.10-0.18). Delta invasive FFR and delta FFR<sub>CT</sub> were 0.23 ± 0.12 and 0.21 ± 0.12 (p = .09) with a mean difference of 0.025 (95% CI: -0.20-0.25). Significant correlations were found between pre-PCI FFR and FFR<sub>CT</sub> (r = 0.53, p < .001), between post-PCI FFR and FFR<sub>CT</sub> planner (r = 0.41, p = .001), and between delta FFR and delta FFR<sub>CT</sub> (r = 0.57, p < .001).<h4>Conclusions</h4>The non-invasive FFR<sub>CT</sub> planner tool demonstrated significant albeit modest agreement with post-PCI FFR and change in FFR values after PCI. The FFR<sub>CT</sub> planner tool may hold promise for PCI procedural planning; however, improvement in technology is warranted before clinical application."],"journal":["Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions"],"pagination":["614-622"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC7984343"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"pubmed_title":["Non-invasive procedural planning using computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve."],"pmcid":["PMC7984343"],"pubmed_authors":["Everaars H","van de Ven PM","Nap A","Verouden NJW","Driessen RS","de Winter RW","Knaapen P","Taylor CA","van Rossum AC","Bom MJ","Danad I","van Diemen PA","Sprengers RW","Schumacher SP","Opolski MP","Leipsic JA"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Non-invasive procedural planning using computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve.","description":"<h4>Objectives</h4>This study aimed to investigate the performance of computed tomography derived fractional flow reserve based interactive planner (FFR<sub>CT</sub> planner) to predict the physiological benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as defined by invasive post-PCI FFR.<h4>Background</h4>Advances in FFR<sub>CT</sub> technology have enabled the simulation of hyperemic pressure changes after virtual removal of stenoses.<h4>Methods</h4>In 56 patients (63 vessels) invasive FFR measurements before and after PCI were obtained and FFR<sub>CT</sub> was calculated using pre-PCI coronary CT angiography. Subsequently, FFR<sub>CT</sub> and invasive coronary angiography models were aligned allowing virtual removal of coronary stenoses on pre-PCI FFR<sub>CT</sub> models in the same locations as PCI was performed. Relationships between invasive FFR and FFR<sub>CT</sub> , between post-PCI FFR and FFR<sub>CT</sub> planner, and between delta FFR and delta FFR<sub>CT</sub> were evaluated.<h4>Results</h4>Pre PCI, invasive FFR was 0.65 ± 0.12 and FFR<sub>CT</sub> was 0.64 ± 0.13 (p = .34) with a mean difference of 0.015 (95% CI: -0.23-0.26). Post-PCI invasive FFR was 0.89 ± 0.07 and FFR<sub>CT</sub> planner was 0.85 ± 0.07 (p < .001) with a mean difference of 0.040 (95% CI: -0.10-0.18). Delta invasive FFR and delta FFR<sub>CT</sub> were 0.23 ± 0.12 and 0.21 ± 0.12 (p = .09) with a mean difference of 0.025 (95% CI: -0.20-0.25). Significant correlations were found between pre-PCI FFR and FFR<sub>CT</sub> (r = 0.53, p < .001), between post-PCI FFR and FFR<sub>CT</sub> planner (r = 0.41, p = .001), and between delta FFR and delta FFR<sub>CT</sub> (r = 0.57, p < .001).<h4>Conclusions</h4>The non-invasive FFR<sub>CT</sub> planner tool demonstrated significant albeit modest agreement with post-PCI FFR and change in FFR values after PCI. The FFR<sub>CT</sub> planner tool may hold promise for PCI procedural planning; however, improvement in technology is warranted before clinical application.","dates":{"release":"2021-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2021 Mar","modification":"2026-06-02T16:18:32.661Z","creation":"2025-04-03T21:34:19.206Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC7984343","cross_references":{"pubmed":["32845067"],"doi":["10.1002/ccd.29210"]}}