Effects of left ventricular mass index on computed tomography derived fractional flow reserve in significant obstructive coronary artery disease. (14th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tsugu, T; Tanaka, K; Belsack, D; Devos, H; Nagatomo, Y; Michiels, V; Argacha, J F; Cosyns, B; Buls, N; De Mey, J
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 42(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-10-14
• Subjects: Computed Tomography Derived Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR-CT); Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.0191
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: In significant obstructive coronary artery disease (SOCAD), a mismatched assessment of the severity of coronary artery stenosis may occur between invasive coronary angiography and computed tomography (CT) derived fractional flow reserve (FFRCT). The exact mechanisms of unexpected underestimation of FFRCT remain unknown. Purpose: The aims of this study are (1) to clarify the mechanisms of underestimation on FFRCT; and (2) to identify the predictive factors of FFRCT underestimation above the value of 0.80 in SOCAD vessels. Methods: A total of 1160 outpatients who underwent CT angiography (CTA) with FFRCT analysis for suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) between January 2017 and June 2020 were evaluated. Among them, 141 consecutive patients who had both CTA coupled to FFRCT analysis and invasive angiogram showing >75% coronary stenosis were included for analysis. Vessels were divided into two groups according to FFRCT at the distal vessel: FFRCT >0.80 (n=12) and FFRCT ≤0.80 (n=153). Vessel-related parameters, including vessel morphology (vessel length and lumen volume) and plaque components (non-calcified plaque volume and calcified plaque volume) and left ventricular (LV) myocardial-related parameters, including LV wall thickness at each site of the myocardium, and LV mass were evaluated semi-automatically. Results: Vessel morphology and plaque components did not differ between FFRCT >0.80 and ≤0.80, whereas LV wall thickness (average; 10.7±2.7 vs. 8.4±1.6 mm, and maximal; 13.5±3.0 vs. 10.6±1.8 mm, all p value <0.001), LV mass (136.4±38.4 vs. 98.8±26.8 g, p<0.001), and LV mass index (73.8±22.6 vs. 51.8±12.2 g/m 2, p<0.001) were significantly higher in FFRCT >0.80. Next, we investigated the parameters that correlated with FFRCT. Of all, vessel morphology and plaque components were not related to FFRCT, whereas maximal LV wall thickness, r=0.24, p=0.01; LV mass, r=0.19. p=0.04; and LV mass index, r=0.30, p=0.001) correlated with FFRCT. In the vessels showing FFRCT >0.80, only LV mass (r=0.84, p=0.005) and LV mass index (r=0.67, p=0.047) correlated with FFRCT. (Figure 1). LV mass index was the strongest predictor of a distal FFRCT of >0.80 with the area under curve (AUC) 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 – 1.00, P<0.0001 and an optimal cut-off value of 66.5 g/m 2 sensitivity 77.8%, specificity 89.6% (Figure 2). Conclusions: FFRCT is affected not by vessel-related parameters but LV myocardial-related parameters in SOCAD. The presence of an excessive LV mass is a major predictor of underestimation of FFRCT in SOCAD vessels. LV myocardial-related parameters should be considered when interpreting numerical values of FFRCT to avoid the possibility of overlooked SOCAD. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: None.