We have located links that may give you full text access.
Noninvasive Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Based on Structural and Fluid Analysis: Reproducibility of On-site Determination by Unexperienced Observers.
Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 2018 March
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of computed tomography (CT)-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) determined on site by inexperienced observers using a postprocessing software based on structural and fluid analysis.
METHODS: Using 21 coronary vessels in 7 patients who underwent 320-row coronary CT angiography and catheter-FFR, 2 independent inexperienced observers (A: a student radiation technologist; B: a nonmedical staff) determined the CT-FFR using a postprocessing software. After a 20-minute training session, both observers postprocessed all vessels and readjusted their settings after another training/feedback. These CT-FFRs were compared with values determined by an expert analyst.
RESULTS: The mean processing times were 23 ± 4 minutes (automatic), 71 ± 5 minutes (observer A), and 57 ± 7 minutes (observer B) per patient. The initial correlations with expert data were r = 0.92 (observer A) and 0.73 (observer B) and increased to 0.83 for observer B after additional training. The final absolute difference with the expert data was 0.000 to 0.020. The correlation between catheter-FFR and expert CT-FFR was r = 0.76.
CONCLUSIONS: The CT-derived FFR on-site postprocessing software showed good reproducibility for measurements by inexperienced observers.
METHODS: Using 21 coronary vessels in 7 patients who underwent 320-row coronary CT angiography and catheter-FFR, 2 independent inexperienced observers (A: a student radiation technologist; B: a nonmedical staff) determined the CT-FFR using a postprocessing software. After a 20-minute training session, both observers postprocessed all vessels and readjusted their settings after another training/feedback. These CT-FFRs were compared with values determined by an expert analyst.
RESULTS: The mean processing times were 23 ± 4 minutes (automatic), 71 ± 5 minutes (observer A), and 57 ± 7 minutes (observer B) per patient. The initial correlations with expert data were r = 0.92 (observer A) and 0.73 (observer B) and increased to 0.83 for observer B after additional training. The final absolute difference with the expert data was 0.000 to 0.020. The correlation between catheter-FFR and expert CT-FFR was r = 0.76.
CONCLUSIONS: The CT-derived FFR on-site postprocessing software showed good reproducibility for measurements by inexperienced observers.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app