Clinical Evidence

With 425+ peer-reviewed publications, HeartFlow is committed to ongoing clinical research as we work to transform the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease worldwide. Among many benefits, The HeartFlow Analysis is considered to be a "dominant strategy" compared to stress testing as it is "both less costly and more effective."1

Understand the significant body of research supporting use of the HeartFlow Analysis and its impact to patient care by clicking one of these key areas of research:


Clinical Validity
and Accuracy
View

Clinical Efficacy
and Utility
View

Long Term
Patient Safety
View

Cost Savings
 
View

Clinical Validity and Accuracy

The HeartFlow Analysis combines anatomic and physiologic information in a single non-invasive cardiac test that provides clinicians with higher diagnostic performance and accuracy than other non-invasive tests.2

Diagnostic accuracy:
  • 87% (PACIFIC, JACC 2019)
  • 86% (NXT, JACC 2014)3

P-values reflect comparison to the HeartFlow FFRCT Analysis

Clinical Efficacy and Utility

Real-world and clinical use of the HeartFlow Analysis has been shown to be safe, improve cath lab efficiency and help physicians risk stratify patients. Substantial evidence demonstrates that clinicians use the HeartFlow Analysis to:

  1. Safely impact clinical decision making
  2. Conservatively treat patients with a negative HeartFlow Analysis
  3. Reduce unnecessary ICAs with no reduction in revascularization rates
  4. Increase cath lab efficiency
  5. Identify long-term patient cardiovascular risk

Long Term Patient Safety

Multiple clinical trials demonstrate that physicians can efficiently determine the most appropriate treatment pathway for each patient by utilizing the HeartFlow Analysis.

There are numerous studies providing long-term follow-up (1-5 years) of over 6,000 patients demonstrating that clinicians can safely and confidently utilize the HeartFlow Analysis in their clinical decision making.

Long Term Outcomes Findings

Patients with a stenosis between 30 and 90% but a negative HeartFlow Analysis (FFRCT > 0.80) have a favorable long-term prognosis with very low rates of adverse cardiac event rates or unplanned revascularization, rates similar to patients without stenosis.8

Among patients with a positive HeartFlow Analysis (FFRCT ≤ 0.80), those who undergo revascularization have lower event rates than patients who do not undergo revascularization.8

Cost Savings

A patient pathway driven by a coronary CTA and appropriate use of the HeartFlow Analysis improves patient care, improves outcomes and lowers the costs of care by providing significant per-patient cost savings.1,5 Importantly, a CTA plus HeartFlow strategy may present a more favorable initial diagnostic option in the evaluation of low-risk stable chest pain compared with stress testing as it provides:

Improved Outcomes1

6 months of longer life in perfect health
Better identification of patients needing treatment
50% increase in cath lab yield

Lower Costs of Care1

Decreased total costs: 10% vs stress testing in all comers population
Long-term cost effectiveness

When evaluating costs of using a CT+HeartFlow pathway compared to diagnostic ICA, cost savings increased5:


For more information about our ongoing research, visit our Clinical Research page.

Clinical Research

REFERENCES

  1. Karády, et al. JAMA Open. 2020.
  2. Driessen, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019.
  3. Ihdayhid, et al. Radiology 2019.
  4. Fairbairn, et al. Euro Heart J 2018.
  5. Douglas, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016.
  6. Fairbairn, et al. Euro Heart J 2018. Patel, et al, J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2019.
  7. Patel, et al, J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2019.
  8. Nørgaard, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018.

101421368 v2