RESUMO
Aims: A comparison of diagnostic performance comparing AI-QCTISCHEMIA, coronary computed tomography angiography using fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR), and physician visual interpretation on the prediction of invasive adenosine FFR have not been evaluated. Furthermore, the coronary plaque characteristics impacting these tests have not been assessed. Methods and results: In a single centre, 43-month retrospective review of 442 patients referred for coronary computed tomography angiography and CT-FFR, 44 patients with CT-FFR had 54 vessels assessed using intracoronary adenosine FFR within 60 days. A comparison of the diagnostic performance among these three techniques for the prediction of FFR ≤ 0.80 was reported. The mean age of the study population was 65 years, 76.9% were male, and the median coronary artery calcium was 654. When analysing the per-vessel ischaemia prediction, AI-QCTISCHEMIA had greater specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), diagnostic accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) vs. CT-FFR and physician visual interpretation CAD-RADS. The AUC for AI-QCTISCHEMIA was 0.91 vs. 0.76 for CT-FFR and 0.62 for CAD-RADS ≥ 3. Plaque characteristics that were different in false positive vs. true positive cases for AI-QCTISCHEMIA were max stenosis diameter % (54% vs. 67%, P < 0.01); for CT-FFR were maximum stenosis diameter % (40% vs. 65%, P < 0.001), total non-calcified plaque (9% vs. 13%, P < 0.01); and for physician visual interpretation CAD-RADS ≥ 3 were total non-calcified plaque (8% vs. 12%, P < 0.01), lumen volume (681 vs. 510â mm3, P = 0.02), maximum stenosis diameter % (40% vs. 62%, P < 0.001), total plaque (19% vs. 33%, P = 0.002), and total calcified plaque (11% vs. 22%, P = 0.003). Conclusion: Regarding per-vessel prediction of FFR ≤ 0.8, AI-QCTISCHEMIA revealed greater specificity, PPV, accuracy, and AUC vs. CT-FFR and physician visual interpretation CAD-RADS ≥ 3.