Non-invasive fractional flow reserve: a comparison of one-dimensional and three-dimensional mathematical modeling effectiveness

Aim. Comparative analysis of the diagnostic effectiveness of onedimensional (1-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) non-invasive methods for coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment based on the coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA).

Material and methods. We carried out a retrospective analysis of CCTA data for 13 patients (men — 9, mean age — 61,07±9,73). In the original research, coronary FFR of those patients was evaluated using the original 3-D HeartFlow® Analysis followed by a standard invasive FFR assessment. We estimated coronary FFR using the 1-D algorithm of the Laboratory of Mathematical Modeling (Sechenov University) and compared the diagnostic effectiveness of these methods.

Results. In per-vessel analysis, the sensitivity and specificity of the 3-D approach were 90,91% (95% confidence interval (CI) 62,26-99,53) and 20% (95% CI 0,01026-62,46, p>0,9999), respectively; in per-patient analysis — 90% (95% CI 59,58-99,49) and 0% (95% CI 0-56,15, p>0,9999), respectively; area under the ROC curve was 93,75% (95% CI 80,26-100), p=2,0431e-10. For the 1-D approach, the same parameters in per-patient analysis were 88,89 % (95% CI 56,50-99,43) and 25% (95% CI 0,01282-69,94, p>0,9999), respectively; in per-vessel analysis — 100% (95% CI 72,25-100) and 33,33% (95% CI 0,05923-70, p=0,1250), respectively; area under the ROC curve was 84,54% (95% CI 63,93-100), p=0,001. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the 3-D and 1-D techniques was 0,7326 (95% CI 0,35810,9041), p=0,0017.

Conclusion. Although we have obtained lower values of area under the ROC curve, the sensitivity and specificity of experimental approach, as well as the correlation coefficient between models were rather high. However, further studies with higher statistical power are required.

1. Tonino РА, De Bruyne В, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiograрhy for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213-24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0807611.

2. Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino РА, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year followup of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. JACC. 2010;56(3):177-84. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.04.012.

3. van Nunen LX, Zimmermann FM, Tonino PA, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386(10006):1853-60. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00057-4.

4. Tonino PA. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenosis in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. JACC. 2010;55:2816-2. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.11.096.

5. Patel MR, Peterson ED, David D, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362:886-95. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0907272.

6. 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. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1205361.

7. Gognieva DG, Syrkin AL, Vassilevski YV, et al. Noninvasive Assessment of Fractional Flow Reserve Using Mathematical Modeling of Coronary Flow. Kardiologiia. 2018;58(12):85-92. (In Russ.) doi: 10.18087/cardio.2018.12.10164.

8. Danilov AA, Ivanov YuA, Pryamonosov RA, et аl. Methods of graph network reconstruction in personalized medicine. Int J Numer Meth Biomed Engng. 2015; e02754. Published online. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/cnm.2754; doi:10.1002/cnm.2754.

9. Gamilov Т, Kopylov Ph, Simakov S. Computational simulations of fractional flow reserve variability. Numerical Mathematics and Advanced Applications — ENUMATH 2015 (Bulent Karasozen, Murat Manguoglu, Munevver Tezer-Sezgin, Serdar Goktepe, Omur Ugur eds.). Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, Springer 2016, pages 499-507

10. Gamilov TM, Kopylov PhYu, Pryamonosov RA, et ак Virtual fractional flow reserve assessment in patient-specific coronary networks by 1D hemodynamic model. Russian Journal of Numerical Analysis and Mathematical Modelling. 2015;30(5):269-76. doi: 10.1515/rnam-2015-0024.

11. Kopylov Ph, Bykova A, Vassilevski Yu, et ак Role of measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in coronary artery atherosclerosis, Therapeutic archive. 2015;87(9):106-13. (In Russ.) doi:10.17116/terarkh2015879106-113.

12. Pershina ES, Sinitsin VE, Mershina EA, et al. Non-invasive FFR derived from standard acquired coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) datasets (FFRCT) for the diagnosis of myocardial ischemia in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD): first data of clinical use. Comparison with invasive measurement. Medical Visua^^n. 2018;(2):47- 55. (In Russ.) doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-2018-2-47-55.

13. Blanco PJ, Bulant CA, Muller LO, et al. Comparison of 1D and 3D Models for the Estimation of Fractional Flow Reserve. Medical Physics (physics.med-ph); Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE), arXiv:1805.11472 [physics.med-ph]. May 2018.