Table 2. Diagnostic performance of CT-FFR in various studies.
| Studies | Software | Types | Reference standard | Levels | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Positive predictive value (%) | Negative predictive value (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koo et al. (66) (DISCOVER-FLOW) | HeartFlow | Multi-center, prospective | Invasive FFR | Patient | 87 | 93 | 82 | 85 | 91 | 0.75 |
| Min et al. (67) (DEFACTO) | HeartFlow | Multi-center, prospective | Invasive FFR | Patient | 73 | 90 | 54 | 67 | 84 | 0.80 |
| Nørgaard et al. (68) (NXT) | HeartFlow | Multi-center, prospective | Invasive FFR | Patient | 81 | 86 | 79 | 65 | 93 | 0.90 |
| Kim et al. (69) | HearFlow | Multi-center, prospective | Invasive FFR | Patient | 77 | 85 | 57 | 83 | 62 | – |
| Renker et al. (61) | Siemens cFFR | Single center, retrospective | Invasive FFR | Patient | NA | 94 | 84 | 65 | 93 | 0.91 |
| Coenen et al. (62) | Siemens cFFR | Single center, retrospective | Invasive FFR | Patient | 75 | 88 | 65 | 65 | 88 | 0.83 |
| De Geer et al. (70) | Siemens cFFR | Single center, retrospective | Invasive FFR | Lesion | 78 | 83 | 76 | 56 | 83 | NA |
| Baumann et al. (71) | Metaanalysis | Metaanalysis | Invasive FFR | Patient | 83 | 89 | 70 | 69 | 90 | 0.87 |
| Wu et al. (72) | Metaanalysis | Metaanalysis | Invasive FFR | Patient | NA | 89 | 76 | NA | NA | NA |
AUC, area under the curve; CT-FFR, computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve; NA, not available.