Evidence Hub

Guiding Myocardial Revascularization by Algorithmic Interpretation of FFR Pullback Curves: A Proof of Concept Study

Argacha JF, Decamp J, Vandeloo B, Babin D, Lochy S, Van den Bussche K, de Hemptinne Q, Xaplanteris P et al.

Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2021

1 citation

Abstract

Background: Coronary artery disease distribution along the vessel is a main determinant of FFR improvement after PCI. Identifying focal from diffuse disease from visual inspections of coronary angiogram (CA) and FFR pullback (FFR-PB) are operator-dependent. Computer science may standardize interpretations of such curves. Methods: A virtual stenting algorithm (VSA) was developed to perform an automated FFR-PB curve analysis. A survey analysis of the evaluations of 39 vessels with intermediate disease on CA and a distal FFR <0.8, rated by 5 interventional cardiologists, was performed. Vessel disease distribution and PCI strategy were successively rated based on CA and distal FFR (CA); CA and FFR-PB curve (CA/FFR-PB); and CA and VSA (CA/VSA). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Fleiss kappa and an agreement analysis of CA/VSA rating with both algorithmic and human evaluation (operator) was performed. We hypothesize that VSA would increase rater agreement in interpretation of epicardial disease distribution and subsequent evaluation of PCI eligibility. Results: Inter-rater reliability in vessel disease assessment by CA, CA/FFR-PB, and CA/VSA were respectively, 0.32 (95% CI: 0.17-0.47), 0.38 (95% CI: 0.23-0.53), and 0.4 (95% CI: 0.25-0.55). The raters' overall agreement in vessel disease distribution and PCI eligibility was higher with the VSA than with the operator (respectively, 67 vs. 42%, and 80 vs. 70%, both p < 0.05). Compared to CA/FFR-PB, CA/VSA induced more…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free