Prognostic value of FFRCT in patients with stable chest pain – a 3-year follow-up of the ADVANCE-DK registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The short-term safety of using coronary CT angiography (CTA) derived fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) to guide downstream testing after CTA is well documented. Whether the prognostic information provided by FFRCT can be extended to sustained follow-up and to patients with a high degree of coronary artery calcification (CAC) is unknown. Purpose To evaluate the association between FFRCT and clinical outcomes in new onset stable symptomatic patients with coronary stenosis up to 3 years after CTA index testing. Methods Multicenter 3-year follow-up study of 900 patients from the Assessing Diagnostic Value of Non-invasive FFRCT in Coronary Care (ADVANCE) registry at three Danish sites, the “ADVANCE-DK Registry”. All patients had at least one ≥30% coronary stenosis by CTA and underwent subsequent core laboratory FFRCT analysis by HeartFlow. The criterium for an abnormal FFRCT test result was an FFRCT value ≤0.80 (2 cm distal to stenosis). High CAC was defined as a CAC score ≥400. The primary endpoint (PE) was a composite of all-cause death and spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI). The secondary endpoint (SE) was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and spontaneous MI. Events were adjudicated by an independent clinical committee. Results Patient characteristics are given in Table 1. Coronary stenosis ≥50% was present in 750 (83%) patients. In total 36 patients suffered a PE (all-cause death, n=24; MI, n=12) and 22 an SE (CV death, n=10; MI, n=12). An abnormal vs a normal FFRCT test result was associated with an increased risk of the PE and of the SE both overall and in patients with high CAC; PE (all), 6.6% vs 2.1%, relative risk (RR): 3.1; 95% CI: 1.6–6.3, p<0.001, SE (all), 5.0% vs 0.6%, RR: 8.7; 95% CI: non assessable, p<0.001, PE (high CAC), 9.0% vs 2.2%, RR: 4.1; 85% CI: 1.4–11.8, p=0.001, and SE (high CAC), 6.6% vs 0.5%, RR: 12.0; 95% CI: non assessable, p=0.01, respectively, Figure 1. The observed increased risk in patients with an abnormal vs a normal FFRCT test result persisted after adjustment for degree of stenosis by CCTA (< / ≥50%) and amount of CAC (< / ≥400): PE, adjusted RR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.2–5.2, p=0.02, and SE, adjusted RR: 8.0; 95% CI: 2.1–30.2, p=0.002. Conclusion Patients with stable chest pain, stenosis by CTA and a normal FFRCT test result have a low risk of adverse outcomes during 3 years of follow-up. An abnormal FFRCT identifies patients at increased risk of death or spontaneous MI. These associations are consistent in patients with high levels of CAC. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".