2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.05.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Clinical Use of CT-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve in the Emergency Department

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
44
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
44
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Recently, the first study evaluating the use of FFR CT within the acute chest pain population was published. Chinnaiyan et al compared a strategy of CCTA alone vs CCTA + FFR CT in patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain [28]. A total of 555 patients were included in the cohort with 297 patients undergoing CCTA + FFR CT and 258 patients undergoing CCTA only [28].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, the first study evaluating the use of FFR CT within the acute chest pain population was published. Chinnaiyan et al compared a strategy of CCTA alone vs CCTA + FFR CT in patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain [28]. A total of 555 patients were included in the cohort with 297 patients undergoing CCTA + FFR CT and 258 patients undergoing CCTA only [28].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Initial rejection rates for FFRCT analysis reported throughout the literature range from 13% to 33%, with significant cardiac motion commonly cited as a reason for rejection [ 4 , 6 ]. Pontone et al found that temporal resolution, section thickness, and heart rate are independent predictors of rejection for CCTA FFRCT analysis [ 5 , 9 ]. They postulated that their own study had a low rejection rate of 2.9% because of the use of dual-source technology and wide-coverage single-source scanners.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, a more recent study by Chinnaiyan et al applying a newer off-site FFR-CT algorithm (Heartflow, Inc.) found a rejection rate of 1.6% with no differences in MACE between CTA and FFR-CT groups (4.3% vs 2.7%, p ¼ NS) and deferral of revascularization with a negative FFR-CT was associated with a higher rate (56.5%) of non-obstructive CAD on invasive angiography than positive FFR-CT (8.0%) or coronary CTA (22.9%; p < 0.001). 53 The need for rapid decision-making may make sending a study for off-site analysis with a 2-3 h turn around time undesirable. A smaller contemporary cohort notes of on-site machine-learning based FFR-CT (cFFR, Siemens Healthineers) that for 32% of patients the CT was not deemed to be technically feasible attributed to higher median heart rate (median 81 bpm), but no significant differences in calcium score (median 167 vs 156 in feasible and non-feasible patients).…”
Section: Fractional Flow Reserve By Computed Tomographymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The cost, validity, and processing time to perform novel approaches of plaque quantification such as perivascular fat inflammation, and functional approaches such as CTP and CT-FFR remain unclear, but hold important promise. 53,55 These approaches require assurance of high image quality.…”
Section: Limitations Of Ccta In Acsmentioning
confidence: 99%