Published Online:

On-site, anatomy-based computation of the fractional flow reserve (FFR) can be performed by clinicians using a computationally less demanding coronary CT angiography–derived FFR algorithm; this algorithm improves the diagnostic performance of coronary CT angiography in the identification of functionally important coronary artery disease within a population with a high number of borderline and significantly obstructed coronary arteries.


To validate an on-site algorithm for computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) from coronary computed tomographic (CT) angiography data against invasively measured FFR and to test its diagnostic performance as compared with that of coronary CT angiography.

Materials and Methods

The institutional review board provided a waiver for this retrospective study. From coronary CT angiography data in 106 patients, FFR was computed at a local workstation by using a computational fluid dynamics algorithm. Invasive FFR measurement was performed in 189 vessels (80 of which had an FFR ≤ 0.80); these measurements were regarded as the reference standard. The diagnostic characteristics of coronary CT angiography–derived computational FFR, coronary CT angiography, and quantitative coronary angiography were evaluated against those of invasively measured FFR by using C statistics. Sensitivity and specificity were compared by using a two-sided McNemar test.


For computational FFR, sensitivity was 87.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.2%, 93.8%), specificity was 65.1% (95% CI: 55.4%, 74.0%), and accuracy was 74.6% (95% CI: 68.4%, 80.8%), as compared with the finding of lumen stenosis of 50% or greater at coronary CT angiography, for which sensitivity was 81.3% (95% CI: 71.0%, 89.1%), specificity was 37.6% (95% CI: 28.5%, 47.4%), and accuracy was 56.1% (95% CI: 49.0%, 63.2%). C statistics revealed a larger area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for computational FFR (AUC, 0.83) than for coronary CT angiography (AUC, 0.64). For vessels with intermediate (25%–69%) stenosis, the sensitivity of computational FFR was 87.3% (95% CI: 76.5%, 94.3%) and the specificity was 59.3% (95% CI: 47.8%, 70.1%).


With use of a reduced-order algorithm, computation of the FFR from coronary CT angiography data can be performed locally, at a regular workstation. The diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography–derived computational FFR for the detection of functionally important coronary artery disease (CAD) was good and was incremental to that of coronary CT angiography within a population with a high prevalence of CAD.

© RSNA, 2014


  • 1. Min JK, Shaw LJ, Berman DS. The present state of coronary computed tomography angiography a process in evolution. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55(10):957–965. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Hoffmann MH, Shi H, Schmitz BL, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography with multislice computed tomography. JAMA 2005;293(20):2471–2478. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52(25):2135–2144. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzky M, et al. Non-invasive coronary computed tomographic angiography for patients with suspected coronary artery disease: the Coronary Angiography by Computed Tomography with the Use of a Submillimeter resolution (CACTUS) trial. Eur Heart J 2007;28(24):3034–3041. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52(21):1724–1732. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 2008;359(22):2324–2336. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Dewey M. Coronary CT versus MR angiography: pro CT—the role of CT angiography. Radiology 2011;258(2):329–339. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med 1996;334(26):1703–1708. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2012;367(11):991–1001. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Meijboom WB, Van Mieghem CA, van Pelt N, et al. Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses: computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography and correlation with fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52(8):636–643. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Ko BS, Wong DT, Cameron JD, et al. 320-row CT coronary angiography predicts freedom from revascularisation and acts as a gatekeeper to defer invasive angiography in stable coronary artery disease: a fractional flow reserve-correlated study. Eur Radiol 2014;24(3):738–747. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Kim HJ, Vignon-Clementel IE, Coogan JS, Figueroa CA, Jansen KE, Taylor CA. Patient-specific modeling of blood flow and pressure in human coronary arteries. Ann Biomed Eng 2010;38(10):3195–3209. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Koo BK, Erglis A, Doh JH, et al. Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58(19):1989–1997. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA 2012;308(12):1237–1245. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Nørgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps). J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63(12):1145–1155. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Task Force Members, Montalescot G, Sechtem U, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013;34(38):2949–3003. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Raff GL, Abidov A, Achenbach S, et al. SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary computed tomographic angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009;3(2):122–136. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Choy JS, Kassab GS. Scaling of myocardial mass to flow and morphometry of coronary arteries. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2008;104(5):1281–1286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Murray CD. The physiological principle of minimum work. I. The vascular system and the cost of blood volume. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1926;12(3):207–214. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Sharma P, Itu L, Zheng X, et al. A framework for personalization of coronary flow computations during rest and hyperemia. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2012;2012:6665–6668. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Mantero S, Pietrabissa R, Fumero R. The coronary bed and its role in the cardiovascular system: a review and an introductory single-branch model. J Biomed Eng 1992;14(2):109–116. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22. van de Vosse FN, Stergiopulos N. Pulse wave propagation in the arterial tree. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 2011;43(1):467–499. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Itu L, Sharma P, Mihalef V, Kamen A, Suciu C, Comaniciu D. A patient-specific reduced-order model for coronary circulation. Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging 2012; 832–835. Google Scholar
  • 24. Wilson RF, Wyche K, Christensen BV, Zimmer S, Laxson DD. Effects of adenosine on human coronary arterial circulation. Circulation 1990;82(5):1595–1606. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44(3):837–845. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Radiology 2003;226(1):24–28. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Schaap J, Kauling RM, Boekholdt SM, et al. Incremental diagnostic accuracy of hybrid SPECT/CT coronary angiography in a population with an intermediate to high pre-test likelihood of coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;14(7):642–649. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28. Rocha-Filho JA, Blankstein R, Shturman LD, et al. Incremental value of adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging with dual-source CT at cardiac CT angiography. Radiology 2010;254(2):410–419. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 29. Groothuis JG, Beek AM, Brinckman SL, et al. Combined non-invasive functional and anatomical diagnostic work-up in clinical practice: the magnetic resonance and computed tomography in suspected coronary artery disease (MARCC) study. Eur Heart J 2013;34(26):1990–1998. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30. Kirschbaum SW, Nieman K, Springeling T, et al. Non-invasive diagnostic workup of patients with suspected stable angina by combined computed tomography coronary angiography and magnetic resonance perfusion imaging. Circ J 2011;75(7):1678–1684. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31. Kajander S, Joutsiniemi E, Saraste M, et al. Cardiac positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging accurately detects anatomically and functionally significant coronary artery disease. Circulation 2010;122(6):603–613. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received April 28, 2014; revision requested June 11; revision received July 15; accepted July 30; final version accepted August 13.
Published online: Oct 13 2014
Published in print: Mar 2015