The impact of image resolution on computation of fractional flow reserve: coronary computed tomography angiography versus 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Lili Liu ; Wenjie Yang ; Yasuomi Nagahara…
• 关键词：Computational fluid dynamics ; Coronary computed tomography angiography ; Fractional flow reserve ; Quantitative coronary angiography
• 刊名：The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging (formerly Cardiac Imaging)
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：March 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：32
• 期：3
• 页码：513-523
• 全文大小：1,345 KB
• 参考文献：1.Pijls NH et al (2007) Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 49(21):2105–2111CrossRef PubMed
  2.Tonino PAL et al (2009) Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 360(3):213–224CrossRef PubMed
  3.De Bruyne B et al (2012) Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 367(11):991–1001CrossRef PubMed
  4.Min JK et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA 308(12):1237–1245PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  5.Baumann S et al (2015) Coronary CT angiography-derived fractional flow reserve correlated with invasive fractional flow reserve measurements–initial experience with a novel physician-driven algorithm. Eur Radiol 25(4):1201–1207CrossRef PubMed
  6.Coenen A et al (2015) Fractional flow reserve computed from noninvasive CT angiography data: diagnostic performance of an on-site clinician-operated computational fluid dynamics algorithm. Radiology 274(3):674–683CrossRef PubMed
  7.Morris PD et al (2013) Virtual fractional flow reserve from coronary angiography: modeling the significance of coronary lesions: results from the VIRTU-1 (VIRTUal Fractional Flow Reserve From Coronary Angiography) study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6(2):149–157CrossRef PubMed
  8.Papafaklis MI et al (2014) Fast virtual functional assessment of intermediate coronary lesions using routine angiographic data and blood flow simulation in humans: comparison with pressure wire—fractional flow reserve. EuroIntervention 10(5):574–583CrossRef PubMed
  9.Tu S et al (2014) Fractional flow reserve calculation from 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography and TIMI frame count: a fast computer model to quantify the functional significance of moderately obstructed coronary arteries. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 7(7):768–777CrossRef PubMed
  10.Tu S et al (2015) Image-based assessment of fractional flow reserve. EuroIntervention 11(Suppl V):50–54CrossRef
  11.De Graaf MA et al (2013) Automatic quantification and characterization of coronary atherosclerosis with computed tomography coronary angiography: cross-correlation with intravascular ultrasound virtual histology. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 29(5):1177–1190CrossRef PubMed
  12.Tu S et al (2012) In vivo comparison of arterial lumen dimensions assessed by co-registered three-dimensional (3D) quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 28(6):1315–1327PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  13.Stefanini GG, Windecker S (2015) Can coronary computed tomography angiography replace invasive angiography? Coronary computed tomography angiography cannot replace invasive angiography. Circulation 131(4):418–425 discussion 426 CrossRef PubMed
  14.Hebsgaard L et al (2015) Co-registration of optical coherence tomography and X-ray angiography in percutaneous coronary intervention. The does optical coherence tomography optimize revascularization (DOCTOR) fusion study. Int J Cardiol 182:272–278CrossRef PubMed
  15.Johnson NP, Kirkeeide RL, Gould KL (2013) Coronary anatomy to predict physiology: fundamental limits. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 6(5):817–832CrossRef PubMed
  16.Sun G et al (1016) 320-detector row CT coronary angiography: effects of heart rate and heart rate variability on image quality, diagnostic accuracy and radiation exposure. Br J Radiol 2012(85):e388–e394
  17.Nakagawa J et al (2013) Reduction of thoracic aorta motion artifact with high-pitch 128-slice dual-source computed tomographic angiography: a historical control study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37(5):755–759CrossRef PubMed
  18.Dehmer GJ et al (2012) A contemporary view of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: a report from the CathPCI Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, 2010 through June 2011. J Am Coll Cardiol 60(20):2017–2031CrossRef PubMed
  19.Eric KW, Poon UH, Thondapu V, Andrew SH, Ooi SM, Asrar-Ul-Haq M, Foin N, Tu S, Chin C, Monty JP, Marusic I, Barlis P (2015) Advances in three-dimensional coronary imaging and computational fluid dynamics: Is virtual fractional flow reserve more than just a pretty picture? J Coron Artery Dis. doi: 10.​1097/​MCA.​0000000000000219​ (in press)
  20.Koo BK et al (2011) Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 58(19):1989–1997CrossRef PubMed
  21.Norgaard BL et al (2014) Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps). J Am Coll Cardiol 63(12):1145–1155CrossRef PubMed
  22.Papadopoulou SL et al (2013) Reproducibility of computed tomography angiography data analysis using semiautomated plaque quantification software: implications for the design of longitudinal studies. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 29(5):1095–1104CrossRef PubMed
  23.Bourantas CV et al (2009) Comparison of quantitative coronary angiography with intracoronary ultrasound Can quantitative coronary angiography accurately estimate the severity of a luminal stenosis? Angiography 60(2):169–179
  24.Tu S et al (2011) The impact of acquisition angle differences on three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 78(2):214–222CrossRef PubMed
  25.Li Y et al (2015) Impact of side branch modeling on computation of endothelial shear stress in coronary artery disease coronary tree reconstruction by fusion of 3D angiography and OCT. J Am Coll Cardiol 66(2):125–135CrossRef PubMed
  
• 作者单位：Lili Liu (1)
  Wenjie Yang (2)
  Yasuomi Nagahara (3)
  Yingguang Li (4)
  Saeb R. Lamooki (1)
  Takashi Muramatsu (3)
  Pieter Kitslaar (4)
  Masayoshi Sarai (3)
  Yukio Ozaki (3)
  Peter Barlis (5)
  Fuhua Yan (2)
  Johan H. C. Reiber (4)
  Shengxian Tu (1)
  
  1. Biomedical Instrument Institute, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
  2. Department of Radiology, Rui Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
  3. Department of Cardiology, Fujita Health University Hospital, Toyoake, Japan
  4. Division of Image Processing, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  5. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  
• 刊物类别：Medicine
• 刊物主题：Medicine & Public Health
  Cardiology
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-0743

文摘

Calculation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) requires reconstruction of patient-specific coronary geometry and estimation of hyperemic flow rate. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) are two dominating imaging modalities used for the geometrical reconstruction. Our aim was to investigate the impact of image resolution as inherently associated with these two imaging modalities on geometrical reconstruction and subsequent FFR calculation. Patients with mild or intermediate coronary stenoses who underwent both CCTA and ICA were included. CCTA images were acquired either by 320-row area detector CT or by 128-slice dual-source CT. Two geometrical models were reconstructed separately from CCTA and ICA, from which FFR_CTA and FFR_QCA were subsequently calculated using CFD simulations, applying the same hyperemic flow rate derived from the ICA images at the inlet boundaries. A total of 57 vessels in 41 patients were analyzed. Average diameter stenosis was 43.4 ± 10.8 % by 3D QCA. Reasonably good correlation between FFR_CTA and FFR_QCA was observed (r = 0.71, p < 0.001). The difference between FFR_CTA and FFR_QCA was correlated with the deviation between minimal lumen areas by CCTA and by ICA (ρ = 0.34, p = 0.01), but not with plaque volume (ρ = −0.09, p = 0.51) or calcified plaque volume (ρ = 0.01, p = 0.95). Applying the cutoff value of ≤0.8 to both FFR_CTA and FFR_QCA, the agreement between FFR_CTA and FFR_QCA in discriminating functional significant stenoses was moderate (kappa 0.47, p < 0.001). Disagreement was found in 10 (17.5 %) vessels. Acceptable correlation between FFR_CTA and FFR_QCA was observed, while their agreement in distinguishing functional significant stenosis was moderate. Our results suggest that image resolution has a significant impact on FFR computation. Keywords Computational fluid dynamics Coronary computed tomography angiography Fractional flow reserve Quantitative coronary angiography