Literature DB >> 17612701

Discordance between anatomical and functional coronary stenosis severity.

J S Wijpkema1, J Dorgelo, T P Willems, R A Tio, G A J Jessurun, M Oudkerk, F Zijlstra.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND.: New developments have made 16-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) a promising technique for detecting significant coronary stenoses. At present, there is a paucity of data on the relation between fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement and MDCT stenosis detection. OBJECTIVE.: The aim of this study was to investigate the relation between the anatomical severity of coronary artery disease detected by MDCT and functional severity measured by fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS.: We studied 53 patients (39 men and 14 women, age 62.5+/-8.1 years) with single-vessel disease scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). All patients underwent MDCT scanning one day prior to PCI and FFR was measured before PCI in the target vessel. RESULTS.: MDCT analysis could be performed in 52 of 53 patients (98.1%) and all patients had adequate FFR and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) measurements. The mean stenosis diameters calculated by MDCT and QCA were 67.0+/-11.6% and 60.8+/-11.6% respectively. No significant relation was found between MDCT and QCA (r=0.22, p=0.12) The mean FFR in all patients was 0.67+/-0.18. A relation of r=-0.46 (p=0.0006) between QCA and FFR was found. In contrast, no relation between MDCT and FFR could be demonstrated (r=-0.09, p=0.50). Furthermore, a high incidence of false-positive and false-negative findings was present in both diagnostic modalities. CONCLUSION.: There is no clear relation between the anatomical and functional severity of coronary artery disease as defined by MDCT and FFR. Therefore, functional assessment of coronary artery disease remains mandatory for clinical decisionmaking. (Neth Heart J 2007;15:5-11.).

Entities:  

Year:  2007        PMID: 17612701      PMCID: PMC1847721     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neth Heart J        ISSN: 1568-5888            Impact factor:   2.380


  29 in total

1.  Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial.

Authors:  G J Bech; B De Bruyne; N H Pijls; E D de Muinck; J C Hoorntje; J Escaned; P R Stella; E Boersma; J Bartunek; J J Koolen; W Wijns
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2001-06-19       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  A reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Grading of Coronary Artery Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery, American Heart Association.

Authors:  W G Austen; J E Edwards; R L Frye; G G Gensini; V L Gott; L S Griffith; D C McGoon; M L Murphy; B B Roe
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1975-04       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography.

Authors:  Nico R Mollet; Filippo Cademartiri; Carlos A G van Mieghem; Giuseppe Runza; Eugène P McFadden; Timo Baks; Patrick W Serruys; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2005-10-03       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive 64-slice CT coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris.

Authors:  Francesca Pugliese; Nico R A Mollet; Giuseppe Runza; Carlos van Mieghem; Willem B Meijboom; Patrizia Malagutti; Timo Baks; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J deFeyter; Filippo Cademartiri
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-11-16       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Does the quantitative assessment of coronary artery dimensions predict the physiologic significance of a coronary stenosis?

Authors:  F Zijlstra; J van Ommeren; J H Reiber; P W Serruys
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Systematic bias in the reporting of angioplasty outcomes: accuracy of visual estimates of absolute lumen diameters.

Authors:  B P Kimball; S Bui; E A Cohen; P K Cheung; V Lima
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 5.223

Review 7.  Our preoccupation with coronary luminology. The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease.

Authors:  E J Topol; S E Nissen
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1995-10-15       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Quantitative coronary angiography in predicting functional significance of stenoses in an unselected patient cohort.

Authors:  J Bartúnek; S U Sys; G R Heyndrickx; N H Pijls; B De Bruyne
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 24.094

9.  Prediction of the physiologic significance of coronary arterial lesions by quantitative lesion geometry in patients with limited coronary artery disease.

Authors:  R F Wilson; M L Marcus; C W White
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Which cineangiographically assessed anatomic variable correlates best with functional measurements of stenosis severity? A comparison of quantitative analysis of the coronary cineangiogram with measured coronary flow reserve and exercise/redistribution thallium-201 scintigraphy.

Authors:  F Zijlstra; P Fioretti; J H Reiber; P W Serruys
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  22 in total

1.  Atherosclerotic plaque imaging by PET/CT; can inactive, active and mixed plaques be discerned?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; J W Jukema; J J Bax; A van der Laarse
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-12-05       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  Aortic and coronary atherosclerosis: a natural association?

Authors:  Ernst E van der Wall; Arnoud van der Laarse
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-11-27       Impact factor: 2.357

3.  Monitoring plaque composition: is it worthwile?

Authors:  Arnoud van der Laarse; Ernst E van der Wall
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-11-27       Impact factor: 2.357

4.  Dual source computed tomography: automated, visual or dual analysis?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J H C Reiber
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-11-27       Impact factor: 2.357

5.  Non-significant left main disease; truly non-significant?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; J W Jukema; J J Bax; M J Schalij
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-02-17       Impact factor: 2.357

6.  CT angiography; useful in non-selected outpatients?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; M J Schalij; J W Jukema; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 2.357

7.  CT angiography; no collateral damage.

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; J W Jukema; M J Schalij; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-01-22       Impact factor: 2.357

8.  Triple rule-out CT coronary angiography: three of a kind?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-11-11       Impact factor: 2.357

9.  Low-dose CT angiography: sufficient contrast for vessel imaging?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; J J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 2.357

10.  CT perfusion angiography; beware of artifacts!

Authors:  E E van der Wall; J D Schuijf; J J Bax; J W Jukema; M J Schalij
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 2.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.