Diagnostic performance of virtual fractional flow reserve derived from routine coronary angiography using segmentation free reduced order (1-dimensional) flow modelling

• Main Authors: Kevin Mohee, Jonathan P Mynard, Gauravsingh Dhunnoo, Rhodri Davies, Perumal Nithiarasu, Julian P Halcox, Daniel R Obaid
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: SAGE Publishing 2020-11-01
• Series: JRSM Cardiovascular Disease
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1177/2048004020967578

Introduction Fractional flow reserve (FFR) improves assessment of the physiological significance of coronary lesions compared with conventional angiography. However, it is an invasive investigation. We tested the performance of a virtual FFR (1D-vFFR) using routine angiographic images and a rapidly performed reduced order computational model. Methods Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed in 102 with coronary lesions assessed by invasive FFR. A 1D-vFFR for each lesion was created using reduced order (one-dimensional) computational flow modelling derived from conventional angiographic images and patient specific estimates of coronary flow. The diagnostic accuracy of 1D-vFFR and QCA derived stenosis was compared against the gold standard of invasive FFR using area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Results QCA revealed the mean coronary stenosis diameter was 44% ± 12% and lesion length 13 ± 7 mm. Following angiography calculation of the 1DvFFR took less than one minute. Coronary stenosis (QCA) had a significant but weak correlation with FFR (r = −0.2, p = 0.04) and poor diagnostic performance to identify lesions with FFR <0.80 (AUC 0.39, p = 0.09), (sensitivity – 58% and specificity – 26% at a QCA stenosis of 50%). In contrast, 1D-vFFR had a better correlation with FFR (r = 0.32, p = 0.01) and significantly better diagnostic performance (AUC 0.67, p = 0.007), (sensitivity – 92% and specificity - 29% at a 1D-vFFR of 0.7). Conclusions 1D-vFFR improves the determination of functionally significant coronary lesions compared with conventional angiography without requiring a pressure-wire or hyperaemia induction. It is fast enough to influence immediate clinical decision-making but requires further clinical evaluation.