Joon-Hyung Doh1, Bon-Kwon Koo2, Chang-Wook Nam3, Ji-Hyun Kim4, James K Min5, Ryo Nakazato5, Todung Silalahi6, Hardjo Prawira6, Hyunmin Choi1, Sung Yun Lee1, June Namgung1, Sung Uk Kwon1, Jae-Jin Kwak1, Won Ro Lee1. 1. Department of Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang, Korea. 2. Department of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea bkkoo@snu.ac.kr bkk1214@gmail.com. 3. Department of Medicine, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Daegu, Korea. 4. Department of Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Dongguk University Graduate School, Goyang, Korea. 5. Department of Imaging and Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. PGI Cikini Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Abstract
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. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
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. CCTAMLD was smaller than ICAMLD (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. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
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
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
Authors: Mark J Boogers; Alexander Broersen; Joëlla E van Velzen; Fleur R de Graaf; Heba M El-Naggar; Pieter H Kitslaar; Jouke Dijkstra; Victoria Delgado; Eric Boersma; Albert de Roos; Joanne D Schuijf; Martin J Schalij; Johan H C Reiber; Jeroen J Bax; J Wouter Jukema Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Gilbert L Raff; Aiden Abidov; Stephan Achenbach; Daniel S Berman; Lawrence M Boxt; Matthew J Budoff; Victor Cheng; Tony DeFrance; Jeffrey C Hellinger; Ronald P Karlsberg Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2009-01-29
Authors: Giovanna Sarno; Isabel Decraemer; Piet K Vanhoenacker; Bernard De Bruyne; Michalis Hamilos; Thomas Cuisset; Eric Wyffels; Jozef Bartunek; Guy R Heyndrickx; William Wijns Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Bon-Kwon Koo; Andrejs Erglis; Joon-Hyung Doh; David V Daniels; Sanda Jegere; Hyo-Soo Kim; Allison Dunning; Tony DeFrance; Alexandra Lansky; Jonathan Leipsic; James K Min Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Stella-Lida Papadopoulou; Lisan A Neefjes; Michiel Schaap; Hui-Ling Li; Ermanno Capuano; Alina G van der Giessen; Johan C H Schuurbiers; Frank J H Gijsen; Anoeshka S Dharampal; Koen Nieman; Robert Jan van Geuns; Nico R Mollet; Pim J de Feyter Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2011-07-14 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Pim A L Tonino; Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Uwe Siebert; Fumiaki Ikeno; Marcel van' t Veer; Volker Klauss; Ganesh Manoharan; Thomas Engstrøm; Keith G Oldroyd; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A MacCarthy; William F Fearon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Victor Cheng; Ariel Gutstein; Arik Wolak; Yasuyuki Suzuki; Damini Dey; Heidi Gransar; Louise E J Thomson; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Daniel S Berman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-07
Authors: N H Pijls; B De Bruyne; K Peels; P H Van Der Voort; H J Bonnier; J J Bartunek J Koolen; J J Koolen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-06-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gianluca De Rubeis; Adriane E Napp; Peter Schlattmann; Jacob Geleijns; Michael Laule; Henryk Dreger; Klaus Kofoed; Mathias Sørgaard; Thomas Engstrøm; Hans Henrik Tilsted; Alberto Boi; Michele Porcu; Stefano Cossa; José F Rodríguez-Palomares; Filipa Xavier Valente; Albert Roque; Gudrun Feuchtner; Fabian Plank; Cyril Štěchovský; Theodor Adla; Stephen Schroeder; Thomas Zelesny; Matthias Gutberlet; Michael Woinke; Mihály Károlyi; Júlia Karády; Patrick Donnelly; Peter Ball; Jonathan Dodd; Mark Hensey; Massimo Mancone; Andrea Ceccacci; Marina Berzina; Ligita Zvaigzne; Gintare Sakalyte; Algidas Basevičius; Małgorzata Ilnicka-Suckiel; Donata Kuśmierz; Rita Faria; Vasco Gama-Ribeiro; Imre Benedek; Teodora Benedek; Filip Adjić; Milenko Čanković; Colin Berry; Christian Delles; Erica Thwaite; Gershan Davis; Juhani Knuuti; Mikko Pietilä; Cezary Kepka; Mariusz Kruk; Radosav Vidakovic; Aleksandar N Neskovic; Iñigo Lecumberri; Ignacio Diez Gonzales; Balazs Ruzsics; Mike Fisher; Marc Dewey; Marco Francone Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Roman Leischik; Birgit Dworrak; Peter Foshag; Markus Strauss; Norman Spelsberg; Henning Littwitz; Marc Horlitz Journal: J Clin Med Res Date: 2015-04-08