PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic computed tomographic (CT) perfusion imaging of the myocardium for the detection of hemodynamically relevant coronary artery stenosis compared with the accuracy of coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board and the Federal Radiation Safety Council (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz). All patients provided written informed consent. Thirty-two consecutive patients in adenosine stress conditions underwent dynamic CT perfusion imaging (14 consecutive data sets) performed by using a 256-section scanner with an 8-cm detector and without table movement. Time to peak, area under the curve, upslope, and peak enhancement were determined after calculation of time-attenuation curves. In addition, myocardial blood flow (MBF) was determined quantitatively. Results were compared with those of coronary angiography and FFR measurement by using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. In addition, threshold values based on the Youden index and sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: Area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, and specificity, respectively, were 0.67, 41.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.5%, 61.1%), and 86.6% (95% CI: 76.0%, 93.7%) for time to peak; 0.74, 58.6% (95% CI: 38.9%, 76.5%), and 83.6% (95% CI: 72.5%, 91.5%) for area under the curve; 0.87, 82.8% (95% CI: 64.2%, 94.1%), and 88.1% (95% CI: 77.8%, 94.7%) for upslope; 0.83, 82.8% (95% CI: 64.2%, 94.1%), and 89.6% (95% CI: 79.6%, 95.7%) for peak enhancement; and 0.86, 75.9% (95% CI: 56.5%, 89.7%), and 100% (95% CI: 94.6%, 100%) for MBF. The thresholds determined by using the Youden index were 148.5 HU · sec for area under the curve, 12 seconds for time to peak, 2.5 HU/sec for upslope, 34 HU for peak enhancement, and 1.64 mL/g/min for MBF. CONCLUSION: The semiquantitative parameters upslope and peak enhancement and the quantitative parameter MBF showed similar high diagnostic accuracy. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13121441/-/DC1. RSNA, 2013
PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic computed tomographic (CT) perfusion imaging of the myocardium for the detection of hemodynamically relevant coronary artery stenosis compared with the accuracy of coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board and the Federal Radiation Safety Council (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz). All patients provided written informed consent. Thirty-two consecutive patients in adenosine stress conditions underwent dynamic CT perfusion imaging (14 consecutive data sets) performed by using a 256-section scanner with an 8-cm detector and without table movement. Time to peak, area under the curve, upslope, and peak enhancement were determined after calculation of time-attenuation curves. In addition, myocardial blood flow (MBF) was determined quantitatively. Results were compared with those of coronary angiography and FFR measurement by using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. In addition, threshold values based on the Youden index and sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: Area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, and specificity, respectively, were 0.67, 41.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.5%, 61.1%), and 86.6% (95% CI: 76.0%, 93.7%) for time to peak; 0.74, 58.6% (95% CI: 38.9%, 76.5%), and 83.6% (95% CI: 72.5%, 91.5%) for area under the curve; 0.87, 82.8% (95% CI: 64.2%, 94.1%), and 88.1% (95% CI: 77.8%, 94.7%) for upslope; 0.83, 82.8% (95% CI: 64.2%, 94.1%), and 89.6% (95% CI: 79.6%, 95.7%) for peak enhancement; and 0.86, 75.9% (95% CI: 56.5%, 89.7%), and 100% (95% CI: 94.6%, 100%) for MBF. The thresholds determined by using the Youden index were 148.5 HU · sec for area under the curve, 12 seconds for time to peak, 2.5 HU/sec for upslope, 34 HU for peak enhancement, and 1.64 mL/g/min for MBF. CONCLUSION: The semiquantitative parameters upslope and peak enhancement and the quantitative parameter MBF showed similar high diagnostic accuracy. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13121441/-/DC1. RSNA, 2013
Authors: Matthias Rief; Marcus Y Chen; Andrea L Vavere; Benjamin Kendziora; Julie M Miller; W Patricia Bandettini; Christopher Cox; Richard T George; João Lima; Marcelo Di Carli; Michail Plotkin; Elke Zimmermann; Michael Laule; Peter Schlattmann; Andrew E Arai; Marc Dewey Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: S Feger; A Shaban; S Lukas; C Kendziorra; M Rief; E Zimmermann; M Dewey Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Brendan L Eck; Raymond F Muzic; Jacob Levi; Hao Wu; Rachid Fahmi; Yuemeng Li; Anas Fares; Mani Vembar; Amar Dhanantwari; Hiram G Bezerra; David L Wilson Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: A M Bucher; C N De Cecco; U J Schoepf; R Wang; F G Meinel; S R Binukrishnan; J V Spearman; T J Vogl; B Ruzsics Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Song Soo Kim; Sung Min Ko; Sang Il Choi; Bo Hwa Choi; Arthur E Stillman Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 2.357