MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306320386 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.202

Prognostic value of FFRCT in patients with stable chest pain – a 3-year follow-up of the ADVANCE-DK registry

2022· article· en· W4306320386 on OpenAlexaff
Kristian Tækker Madsen, B L Noergaard, K A Oevrehus, Erik Thorlund Parner, Jesper Møller Jensen, Erik Lerkevang Grove, Timothy Fairbairn, Koen Nieman, Mahesh J. Patel, Campbell Rogers, Hans Mickley, A Rohold, Hans Erik Boetker, Jonathon Leipsic, N P R Sand

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineStenosisChest painClinical endpointCardiologyFractional flow reserveCoronary artery diseaseCoronary angiographyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207