Background: On-site computed tomography (CT)-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) solutions are increasingly needed to reduce delays, costs, and reliance on external platforms. Objectives: This single-center prospective study evaluated the diagnostic performance of an on-site deep learning and fluid dynamic-based CT-FFR algorithm (xFFR, GE HealthCare) against off-site HeartFlow CT-FFR (FFRct) and invasive FFR (iFFR) for coronary artery disease (CAD) assessment. Methods: In this single-center prospective study, 250 symptomatic patients at intermediate-to-high CAD risk (mean age: 65 ± 9 years; 76% male) underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA), xFFR, FFRct, and invasive coronary angiography with iFFR. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated for xFFR and FFRct, with Spearman's correlations and Cohen's κ used to assess agreement with iFFR. Results: Functionally significant CAD was detected in 56.6% (xFFR), 54% (FFRct), and 48% (iFFR) of cases; xFFR showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 95%, 81%, and 88%, respectively. The overall diagnostic accuracy was comparable to FFRct (AUC: 0.91 vs AUC: 0.89; P = 0.274), superior only for left anterior descending coronary artery assessment (AUC: 0.96 vs AUC: 0.84; P = 0.001). Correlation analysis showed good agreement with iFFR (ρ = 0.67) and FFRct (ρ = 0.53). The mean xFFR analysis time was 8 ± 3.4 minutes. Conclusions: This study establishes xFFR as a robust and efficient on-site tool for assessing CAD, demonstrating high diagnostic accuracy, reproducibility, and agreement with invasive methods. Its rapid processing and integration into clinical workflows position xFFR as a promising alternative to off-site FFRct solutions. Further studies are warranted to confirm its generalizability and optimize its implementation.

Deep Learning and Fluid Dynamics On-Site CT-FFR Solution Compared to Off-Site FFRct and Invasive FFR / F. Fazzari, N. Khenkina, G. Piccinni, M. Biroli, A. Annoni, G. Berna, F. Cannata, M.L. Carerj, F. Celeste, A. Del Torto, A. Formenti, A. Frappampina, L. Fusini, P. Gripari, S. Ghulam Alì, D. Junod, A. Maltagliati, M.E. Mancini, V. Mantegazza, R. Maragna, F. Marchetti, F.P. Sbordone, K. Stankowski, L. Tassetti, A. Volpe, L. La Grutta, G. Carafiello, A. Laghi, A.I. Guaricci, F. De Marco, S. Galli, D. Trabattoni, P. Montorsi, R. Pedrinelli, G. Sinagra, P.P. Filardi, A. Baggiano, M. Muratori, V. Pergola, S. Mushtaq, G. Pontone. - In: JACC. CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING. - ISSN 1936-878X. - (2026). [Epub ahead of print] [10.1016/j.jcmg.2025.11.011]

Deep Learning and Fluid Dynamics On-Site CT-FFR Solution Compared to Off-Site FFRct and Invasive FFR

N. Khenkina;M. Biroli;A. Del Torto;A. Formenti;A. Frappampina;L. Fusini;P. Gripari;D. Junod;V. Mantegazza;R. Maragna;F. Marchetti;A. Laghi;F. De Marco;P. Montorsi;A. Baggiano;S. Mushtaq;G. Pontone
Ultimo
2026

Abstract

Background: On-site computed tomography (CT)-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) solutions are increasingly needed to reduce delays, costs, and reliance on external platforms. Objectives: This single-center prospective study evaluated the diagnostic performance of an on-site deep learning and fluid dynamic-based CT-FFR algorithm (xFFR, GE HealthCare) against off-site HeartFlow CT-FFR (FFRct) and invasive FFR (iFFR) for coronary artery disease (CAD) assessment. Methods: In this single-center prospective study, 250 symptomatic patients at intermediate-to-high CAD risk (mean age: 65 ± 9 years; 76% male) underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA), xFFR, FFRct, and invasive coronary angiography with iFFR. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated for xFFR and FFRct, with Spearman's correlations and Cohen's κ used to assess agreement with iFFR. Results: Functionally significant CAD was detected in 56.6% (xFFR), 54% (FFRct), and 48% (iFFR) of cases; xFFR showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 95%, 81%, and 88%, respectively. The overall diagnostic accuracy was comparable to FFRct (AUC: 0.91 vs AUC: 0.89; P = 0.274), superior only for left anterior descending coronary artery assessment (AUC: 0.96 vs AUC: 0.84; P = 0.001). Correlation analysis showed good agreement with iFFR (ρ = 0.67) and FFRct (ρ = 0.53). The mean xFFR analysis time was 8 ± 3.4 minutes. Conclusions: This study establishes xFFR as a robust and efficient on-site tool for assessing CAD, demonstrating high diagnostic accuracy, reproducibility, and agreement with invasive methods. Its rapid processing and integration into clinical workflows position xFFR as a promising alternative to off-site FFRct solutions. Further studies are warranted to confirm its generalizability and optimize its implementation.
CT-FFR; FFRct; coronary artery disease; coronary computed tomography; fractional flow reserve
Settore MEDS-07/B - Malattie dell'apparato cardiovascolare
2026
20-feb-2026
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
deep learning.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Licenza: Nessuna licenza
Dimensione 5.8 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
5.8 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1231953
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
  • OpenAlex 0
social impact