Prognostic value of computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve in patients with diabetes mellitus and unstable angina.

Background: Coronary artery calcification is commonly found in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), which may compromise the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA). Computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR), which integrates coronary anatomy with functional assessment, holds the potential to become a powerful diagnostic tool for evaluating calcified lesions.

Objective: We aim to assess the prognostic value of CT-FFR for calcific lesions in patients with T2DM and unstable angina (UA).

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study involving 3,392 patients who were diagnosed with T2DM and UA who underwent coronary CTA, with at least one visible calcification site. Of those, 1,091 patients and 1,372 vessels were recommended by cardiovascular specialists and completed invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. Simultaneously, those patients also underwent CT-FFR measurements and were divided into two groups based on CT-FFR values: one group with CT-FFR > 0.80 and the other with CT-FFR ≤ 0.80. Demographics, clinical data, the diagnostic performance of CT-FFR, analysis of calcified lesions on CTA, and major adverse events during follow-up were recorded.

Results: The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and the area under the curve (AUC) of CT-FFR were 84.8%, 84.6%, 85.1%, 84.7%, 85.0%, and 84.8%, respectively, per patient, and 82.2%, 80.3.2%, 81.8%, 79.7%, 81.1%, and 82.9% respectively, per vessel. For lesion and calcification characteristics, the degree of stenosis, lesion length, rate of bifurcation lesions, diffusive lesions, occlusion, calcium volume, and coronary artery calcification score (CACS) were significantly higher in the CT-FFR ≤ 0.8 group compared to the CT-FFR > 0.8 group. In contrast, the minimum cross-sectional area was smaller in the CT-FFR ≤ 0.8 group than in the CT-FFR > 0.8 group. Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at the 3-year follow-up was significantly higher in the CT-FFR ≤ 0.8 group compared to the CT-FFR > 0.8 group. The CT-FFR value is an independent predictor of MACCE at the 3-year follow-up.

Conclusion: CT-FFR demonstrated significant diagnostic performance using invasive FFR as the reference standard and proved to be an important predictive tool for assessing prognosis not only in calcified lesions but also in lesions with a CACS score of zero in patients with T2DM and UA. CT-FFR may serve as a valuable tool for guiding treatment decisions in these patients.