Intra-individual comparison of coronary CT angiography-based FFR between energy-integrating and photon-counting detector CT systems
Emese Zsarnóczay, Daniel Pinos, U. Joseph Schoepf, Nicola Fink, Jim O’Doherty, Chiara Gnasso, Joseph P. Griffith, Milán Vecsey-Nagy, Pál Surányi, Pál Maurovich‐Horvat, Tilman Emrich, Ákos Varga‐Szemes
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-based fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) allows for noninvasive determination of the functional severity of anatomic lesions in patients with coronary artery disease. The aim of this study was to intra-individually compare CT-FFR between photon-counting detector (PCD) and conventional energy-integrating detector (EID) CT systems. METHODS: In this single-center prospective study, subjects who underwent clinically indicated CCTA on an EID-CT system were recruited for a research CCTA on PCD-CT within 30 days. Image reconstruction settings were matched as closely as possible between EID-CT (Bv36 kernel, iterative reconstruction strength level 3, slice thickness 0.5 mm) and PCD-CT (Bv36 kernel, quantum iterative reconstruction level 3, virtual monoenergetic level 55 keV, slice thickness 0.6 mm). CT-FFR was measured semi-automatically using a prototype on-site machine learning algorithm by two readers. CT-FFR analysis was performed per-patient and per-vessel, and a CT-FFR ≤ 0.75 was considered hemodynamically significant. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients (63.3 ± 9.2 years; 7 women) were included. Median time between EID-CT and PCD-CT was 5.5 days. Comparison of CT-FFR values showed no significant difference and strong agreement between EID-CT and PCD-CT in the per-vessel analysis (0.88 [0.74-0.94] vs. 0.87 [0.76-0.93], P = 0.096, mean bias 0.02, limits of agreement [LoA] -0.14/0.19, r = 0.83, ICC = 0.92), and in the per-patient analysis (0.81 [0.60-0.86] vs. 0.76 [0.64-0.86], P = 0.768, mean bias 0.02, LoA -0.15/0.19, r = 0.90, ICC = 0.93). All included patients were classified into the same category (CT-FFR > 0.75 vs ≤0.75) with both CT systems. CONCLUSIONS: CT-FFR evaluation is feasible with PCD-CT and it shows a strong agreement with EID-CT-based evaluation when images are similarly reconstructed.