CMR versus CT-FFR in CAD
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Diagnostic accuracy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus computed tomography with fractional flow reserve in suspected coronary artery disease
IRAS ID
258996
Contact name
Jayanth R Arnold
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Leicester
Duration of Study in the UK
4 years, 2 months, 29 days
Research summary
Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of death and disability in the UK. Restricted blood flow to the heart causes chest pain or sometimes a heart attack. Good treatments are available but we first need to identify who has a problem. We can use an invasive test called a ‘coronary angiogram’: to identify any blood vessel narrowings or blockages. However, the test can be painful, and there is a risk of things going wrong. Therefore, guidelines recommend using scans first, as they are safer and less unpleasant.
It remains uncertain which is the most accurate type of scan. National guidelines currently recommend a specific scan called ‘computed tomography coronary angiography’, or CTCA. This helps to rule out disease in some patients who don’t have a problem. However, about half the patients who don’t have a problem will also seem to have something wrong according to this scan. This can be very worrying for patients, especially as they may then need a ‘coronary angiogram’ test to check if they really do have a narrowing .
Computed tomography fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) is an exciting new test which uses a supercomputer to analyse the CTCA scan pictures. A few studies involving carefully selected patients show that this is more accurate than using a CTCA scan alone. However, before we start using it more widely (which means the NHS needs many more scanners), we need to compare it with other types of scans. Currently, the best performing is a heart magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. A bonus with MRI is that it doesn’t use radiation, and recent innovations may make it even more accurate.
Our study will determine which approach is more accurate, benefitting patients and the NHS by helping avoid unnecessary unpleasant tests which require hospital admission.
REC name
East Midlands - Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
19/EM/0295
Date of REC Opinion
16 Sep 2019
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion