| Literature DB >> 24238960 |
Szilard Voros1, Sarah Rinehart2, Jesus G Vazquez-Figueroa2, Anna Kalynych2, Dimitri Karmpaliotis2, Zhen Qian2, Parag H Joshi2, Hunt Anderson2, Laura Murrieta2, Charles Wilmer2, Harold Carlson2, William Ballard2, Charles Brown2.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA), and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. Eighty-five lesions (40% to 99% diameter stenosis) in 85 patients were prospectively interrogated by QCA, CTA, IVUS, and FFR. Minimal lumen diameter (MLD), percent diameter stenosis (%DS), minimal lumen area (MLA), and percent area stenosis (%AS) were measured. Correlation, receiver operating characteristic analysis, kappa statistics, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess relation between anatomic measurements and FFR. Average age was 61.3 ± 7.8; 62% were men. QCA-derived mean %DS was 55.3% ± 19.5%; mean FFR 0.81 ± 0.17; 27% had FFR ≤0.75. QCA had the strongest correlation, followed by CTA and then IVUS for MLD (r = 0.67, 0.47, and 0.29, respectively) and for %DS (r = -0.63, -0.52, and -0.22, respectively); QCA-derived MLD had area under the curve of 0.96, with 95% sensitivity and 82% specificity. Cut-point, area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity for CTA-MLA and IVUS-MLA were 3.11 mm(2), 0.86, 81%, and 81% and 2.68 mm(2), 0.75, 70%, and 80%. In multivariable analysis for each modality, MLD on QCA (odds ratio [OR]: 0.002), %AS on CTA (OR: 1.09) and MLA on IVUS (OR: 0.28) remained independent predictors. In conclusion, in intermediate-to-severe lesions, QCA-, CTA-, and IVUS-derived quantitative anatomic measurements correlated with FFR. CTA-derived cut-points were similar to respective measurements on QCA and IVUS and had similar or better diagnostic performance compared with IVUS.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24238960 PMCID: PMC4007350 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.09.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Cardiol ISSN: 0002-9149 Impact factor: 2.778