Coronary CT Angiographic and Flow Reserve-Guided Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Clinical outcomes following coronary computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve (FFR CT ) testing in clinical practice are unknown. Objectives This study sought to assess real-world clinical outcomes following a diagnostic strategy including first-line coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) with selective FFR CT testing. Methods The study reviewed the results of 3,674 consecutive patients with stable chest pain evaluated with CTA and FFR CT testing to guide downstream management in patients with intermediate stenosis (30% to 70%). The composite endpoint (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, and unplanned revascularization) was determined in 4 patient groups: 1) CTA stenosis <30%, optimal medical treatment (OMT), and no additional testing; 2) FFR CT >0.80, OMT, no additional testing; 3) FFR CT ≤0.80, OMT, no additional testing; and 4) FFR CT ≤0.80, OMT, and referral to invasive coronary angiography. Patients were followed for a median of 24 (range 8 to 41) months. Results FFR CT was available in 677 patients, and the test result was negative (>0.80) in 410 (61%) patients. In 75% of the patients with FFR CT >0.80, maximum coronary stenosis was ≥50%. The cumulative incidence proportion (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the composite endpoint at the end of follow-up was comparable in groups 1 (2.8%; 95% CI: 1.4% to 4.9%) and 2 (3.9%; 95% CI: 2.0% to 6.9%) (p = 0.58) but was higher (when compared with group 1) in groups 3 (9.4%; p = 0.04) and 4 (6.6%; p = 0.08). Risk of myocardial infarction was lower in group 4 (1.3%) than in group 3 (8%; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with intermediate-range coronary stenosis, FFR CT is effective in differentiating patients who do not require further diagnostic testing or intervention (FFR CT >0.80) from higher-risk patients (FFR CT ≤0.80) in whom further testing with invasive coronary angiography and possibly intervention may be needed. Further studies assessing the risk and optimal management strategy in patients undergoing first-line CTA with selective FFR CT testing are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".