AIMS The anatomical criteria for the diagnosis of ischaemia referenced by fractional flow reserve (FFR) from non-invasive coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA), invasive coronary angiography (ICA), and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) have not been evaluated contemporarily in a large-scale study. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic value of CCTA compared with ICA and IVUS in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS CCTA, ICA, IVUS, and FFR were performed in 181 coronary lesions with intermediate severity. Minimal lumen diameter (MLD) and per cent diameter stenosis (%DS) were determined by CCTA and ICA, whereas minimal lumen area (MLA) was determined by CCTA and IVUS. Inducible ischaemia was defined by FFR ≤ 0.80. Diagnostic performances from non-invasive and invasive methods were compared. FFR ≤ 0.80 was observed in 49 (27.1%) lesions. CCTA MLD was smaller than ICA MLD (1.3 ± 0.5 vs. 1.5 ± 0.4 mm, P < 0.001), CCTA %DS was higher than ICA %DS (54.0 ± 14.0 vs. 50.3 ± 12.8%, P < 0.001), and CCTA MLA was smaller than IVUS MLA (2.2 ± 1.2 vs. 3.2 ± 1.2 mm(2), P < 0.001). This trend was consistent irrespective of lesion location, lesion severity, and plaque characteristics. For the determination of ischaemia, diagnostic performance of CCTA %DS was lower than ICA %DS [area under the curve (AUC) 0.657 vs. 0.765, P = 0.04], and that of CCTA MLA was lower than IVUS MLA (AUC 0.712 vs. 0.801, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION Anatomical criteria for the diagnosis of ischaemia-producing coronary stenosis differ by non-invasive and invasive methods. Compared with invasive methods, CCTA presents overestimation in assessing lesion severity and lower diagnostic performance in assessing ischaemia.