Abstract / Summary
Fractional flow reserve derived from CT (FFR-CT) enables non-invasive functional assessment of coronary stenoses in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease, but evidence regarding its prognostic value remains fragmented. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the association between abnormal FFR-CT and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), updating the 2022 meta-analysis by Nørgaard et al METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus through December 2025 for studies comparing outcomes in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease with FFR-CT ≤0.80 versus >0.80 (PROSPERO: CRD420261276897). Random-effects meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment was performed. Subgroup analyses examined FFR-CT technology, geography and follow-up duration. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method. Twenty-two studies with 20 067 patients were included, representing a fourfold increase from the prior meta-analysis. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 120 months. Patients with FFR-CT ≤0.80 had significantly higher MACE risk (HR 3.94; 95% CI 2.92 to 5.31; p<0.0001) with substantial heterogeneity (I²=79.9%). However, restricting to hard endpoints (death/myocardial infarction; k=6) yielded HR 3.28 (95% CI 2.25 to 4.79) with zero heterogeneity (I²=0%). No significant differences emerged across FFR-CT technologies (p=0.812), including HeartFlow, machine learning and deep learning algorithms. Trim-and-fill analysis suggested possible publication bias, with adjusted HR 2.35. GRADE certainty was moderate. Abnormal FFR-CT is associated with nearly fourfold increased risk of MACE in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease, with consistent prognostic value across technologies. The absence of heterogeneity for hard endpoints supports FFR-CT as a reliable prognostic marker. These findings address the evidence gap identified by current guidelines regarding FFR-CT prognostic utility. CRD420261276897. Not applicable (as this is a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis and not a Clinical Trial).
Primary Source
Open heart
Ask Prognia AI
Have questions about this meta-analysis?
Prognia AI can search this source alongside 35M+ PubMed papers and current ESC, AHA, NICE, and ADA guidelines to give you a fully cited clinical answer.
Related Clinical Guidelines
Related Blog Posts
ESC 2023 Heart Failure Guidelines: What Every Cardiologist Needs to Know
The 2023 focused update to the ESC Heart Failure Guidelines introduced key changes to SGLT2 inhibitor recommendations, HFmrEF management, and device therapy thresholds. Here is a practical summary.
CHADS₂-VASc in Practice: When to Start Anticoagulation in AF
A practical walkthrough of the CHADS₂-VASc scoring system, its ESC guideline thresholds, and how to use it alongside HAS-BLED to counsel patients with atrial fibrillation.