- 著者
- Hitoshi Matsuo Tomohiro Kawasaki Tetsuya Amano Yoshiaki Kawase Yoshihiro Sobue Takeshi Kondo Yoshihiro Morino Shunichi Yoda Tomohiro Sakamoto Hiroshi Ito Junya Shite Hiromasa Otake Nobuhiro Tanaka Mitsuyasu Terashima Kazushige Kadota Manesh R. Patel Koen Nieman Campbell Rogers Bjarne L. Norgaard Jeroen J. Bax Kavitha M. Chinnaiyan Daniel S. Berman Timothy A. Fairbairn Lynne M. Hurwitz Koweek Jonathon Leipsic Takashi Akasaka
- 出版者
- The Japanese Circulation Society
- 雑誌
- Circulation Reports (ISSN:24340790)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.2, no.7, pp.364-371, 2020-07-10 (Released:2020-07-10)
- 参考文献数
- 9
- 被引用文献数
- 1
Background:Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) is an established tool for identifying lesion-specific ischemia that is now approved for use by the Japanese insurance system. However, current clinical reimbursement is strictly limited to institutions with designated appropriate use criteria (AUC). This study assessed differences in physicians’ behavior (e.g., use and interpretation of FFRCT, final management) according to Japanese AUC and non-AUC site designation.Methods and Results:Of 5,083 patients in the ADVANCE Registry, 1,829 from Japan were enrolled in this study. Physicians’ behavior after interrogating CCTA and FFRCTwas analyzed separately according to AUC and non-AUC site designation. Compared with AUC sites, patients referred for FFRCTfrom non-AUC sites had a higher rate of negative FFRCT, less severe anatomic stenosis, and a slightly lower rate of management plan reclassification (51.2% vs. 61.3%), with near-identical utility in both groups. Actual care corresponded equally well to post-FFRCTplans in both groups. The likelihood of revascularization for positive or negative FFRCTwas similar between the 2 groups. Importantly, AUC and non-AUC sites were equally unlikely to revascularize patients with negative FFRCTand stenosis >50% or patients with positive FFRCTand stenosis <50%.Conclusions:Compared with AUC sites, non-AUC sites had lower disease burden and reclassification of management plans, but nearly identical clinical integration. Actual care corresponded equally well to post-FFRCTrecommendations at both sites.