- 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.