Lots of interesting abstracts and cases were submitted for TCTAP 2025. Below are the accepted ones after a thorough review by our official reviewers. Don’t miss the opportunity to expand your knowledge and interact with authors as well as virtual participants by sharing your opinion in the comment section!
TCTAP A-052
Clinical Outcomes of False Positive FFR-CT in Coronary Artery Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study
By Keiichiro Yamane, Soichiro Enomoto, Hirokazu Kondo, Toshihiro Tamura
Presenter
Keiichiro Yamane
Authors
Keiichiro Yamane1, Soichiro Enomoto1, Hirokazu Kondo1, Toshihiro Tamura1
Affiliation
Tenri Hospital, Japan1
View Study Report
TCTAP A-052
FFR
Clinical Outcomes of False Positive FFR-CT in Coronary Artery Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Keiichiro Yamane1, Soichiro Enomoto1, Hirokazu Kondo1, Toshihiro Tamura1
Tenri Hospital, Japan1
Background
Fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (FFR-CT) enables the non-invasive functional assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the prognosis of patients with false positive results remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with false positive FFR-CT.
Methods
A retrospective study was conducted on 174 patients who underwent FFR-CT at our hospital due to suspected CAD from March 2021 to June 2024, with a follow-up period of more than 90 days. The false positive group was defined as patients with a positive FFR-CT (<0.75) but no significant coronary stenosis, as confirmed by invasive coronary angiography. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as a composite of cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization.
Results
FFR-CT was technically feasible in 172 patients (99%) (median age 75 years, 66% male). Of these, 83 patients had negative FFR-CT (>0.8), 32 had borderline FFR-CT (0.76-0.80), 57 had positive FFR-CT, and 11 were classified as false positive. During a median follow-up of 870 [486-1077] days, no patients in the false positive group experienced MACE, while 2 patients (2.4%) in the negative group did. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups (log-rank p=0.645).
Conclusion
In our study, the clinical outcomes of patients with false positive FFR-CT were comparable to those with negative FFR-CT. These findings suggest that patients with false positive FFR-CT can be managed similarly to those with negative FFR-CT without requiring special attention.