To the Editor: Modeling FFR using CT angiograms represents the latest of many attempts to predict physiology from anatomy alone. All such techniques over the last 40 years (eg, percentage diameter stenosis, minimum lumen area or diameter, and stenosis flow reserve) have shown reasonable group agreement but unacceptable imprecision for individual application.
A large scatter between FFR and FFRCT most likely existed in the DeFACTO study,1 although it was not explicit in the article, leaving readers to infer its existence from the tables comparing dichotomized FFR and FFRCT. At best, the paired plot of FFR and FFRCT would mirror the results of the Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve (DISCOVER-FLOW) trial,2 which showed wide limits of agreement between FFRCT and FFR of ±0.13 in addition to a slight bias of −0.02 (underestimation by FFRCT) and correlation of 0.72. The discordance may be even larger in the DeFACTO study because per-patient accuracy (73% vs 87%) and specificity (54% vs 82%) were lower than in the DISCOVER-FLOW study.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 1
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.