Wynand J Stuijfzand1, Ibrahim Danad1, Pieter G Raijmakers2, C Bogdan Marcu1, Martijn W Heymans3, Cornelis C van Kuijk2, Albert C van Rossum1, Koen Nieman4, James K Min5, Jonathon Leipsic6, Niels van Royen1, Paul Knaapen7. 1. Department of Cardiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and PET Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Cardiology and Radiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Institute for Cardiovascular Imaging, Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 6. Department of Medicine and Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 7. Department of Cardiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: p.knaapen@vumc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The current study evaluates the incremental value of transluminal attenuation gradient (TAG), TAG with corrected contrast opacification (CCO), and TAG with exclusion of calcified coronary segments (ExC) over coronary computed tomography angiogram (CTA) alone using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the gold standard. BACKGROUND: TAG is defined as the contrast opacification gradient along the length of a coronary artery on a coronary CTA. Preliminary data suggest that TAG provides additional functional information. Interpretation of TAG is hampered by multiple heartbeat acquisition algorithms and coronary calcifications. Two correction models have been proposed based on either dephasing of contrast delivery by relating coronary density to corresponding descending aortic opacification (TAG-CCO) or excluding calcified coronary segments (TAG-ExC). METHODS: Eighty-five patients with intermediate probability of coronary artery disease were prospectively included. All patients underwent step-and-shoot 256-slice coronary CTA. TAG, TAG-CCO, and TAG-ExC analyses were performed followed by invasive coronary angiography in conjunction with FFR measurements of all major coronary branches. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (40%) were diagnosed with hemodynamically-significant coronary artery disease (i.e., FFR ≤0.80). On a per-vessel basis (n = 253), 59 lesions (23%) were graded as hemodynamically significant, and the diagnostic accuracy of coronary CTA (diameter stenosis ≥50%) was 95%, 75%, 98%, and 54% for sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value, respectively. TAG and TAG-ExC did not discriminate between vessels with or without hemodynamically significant lesions (-13.5 ± 17.1 HU [Hounsfield units] × 10 mm(-1) vs. -11.6 ± 13.3 HU × 10 mm(-1), p = 0.36; and 13.1 ± 15.9 HU × 10 mm(-1) vs. -11.4 ± 11.7 HU × 10 mm(-1), p = 0.77, respectively). TAG-CCO was lower in vessels with a hemodynamically-significant lesion (-0.050 ± 0.051 10 mm(-1) vs. -0.036 ± 0.034 10 mm(-1), p = 0.03) and TAG-ExC resulted in a slight improvement of the net reclassification index (0.021, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: TAG did not provide incremental diagnostic value over 256-slice coronary CTA alone in assessing the hemodynamic consequences of a coronary stenosis. Correction for temporal nonuniformity of contrast delivery or exclusion of calcified coronary segments slightly enhanced the results.
OBJECTIVES: The current study evaluates the incremental value of transluminal attenuation gradient (TAG), TAG with corrected contrast opacification (CCO), and TAG with exclusion of calcified coronary segments (ExC) over coronary computed tomography angiogram (CTA) alone using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the gold standard. BACKGROUND: TAG is defined as the contrast opacification gradient along the length of a coronary artery on a coronary CTA. Preliminary data suggest that TAG provides additional functional information. Interpretation of TAG is hampered by multiple heartbeat acquisition algorithms and coronary calcifications. Two correction models have been proposed based on either dephasing of contrast delivery by relating coronary density to corresponding descending aortic opacification (TAG-CCO) or excluding calcified coronary segments (TAG-ExC). METHODS: Eighty-five patients with intermediate probability of coronary artery disease were prospectively included. All patients underwent step-and-shoot 256-slice coronary CTA. TAG, TAG-CCO, and TAG-ExC analyses were performed followed by invasive coronary angiography in conjunction with FFR measurements of all major coronary branches. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (40%) were diagnosed with hemodynamically-significant coronary artery disease (i.e., FFR ≤0.80). On a per-vessel basis (n = 253), 59 lesions (23%) were graded as hemodynamically significant, and the diagnostic accuracy of coronary CTA (diameter stenosis ≥50%) was 95%, 75%, 98%, and 54% for sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value, respectively. TAG and TAG-ExC did not discriminate between vessels with or without hemodynamically significant lesions (-13.5 ± 17.1 HU [Hounsfield units] × 10 mm(-1) vs. -11.6 ± 13.3 HU × 10 mm(-1), p = 0.36; and 13.1 ± 15.9 HU × 10 mm(-1) vs. -11.4 ± 11.7 HU × 10 mm(-1), p = 0.77, respectively). TAG-CCO was lower in vessels with a hemodynamically-significant lesion (-0.050 ± 0.051 10 mm(-1) vs. -0.036 ± 0.034 10 mm(-1), p = 0.03) and TAG-ExC resulted in a slight improvement of the net reclassification index (0.021, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: TAG did not provide incremental diagnostic value over 256-slice coronary CTA alone in assessing the hemodynamic consequences of a coronary stenosis. Correction for temporal nonuniformity of contrast delivery or exclusion of calcified coronary segments slightly enhanced the results.
Authors: Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Julie M Miller; Carlos E Rochitte; Marc Dewey; Hiroyuki Niinuma; Ilan Gottlieb; Narinder Paul; Melvin E Clouse; Edward P Shapiro; John Hoe; Albert C Lardo; David E Bush; Albert de Roos; Christopher Cox; Jeffrey Brinker; Joăo A C Lima Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: James K Min; Bon-Kwon Koo; Andrejs Erglis; Joon-Hyung Doh; David V Daniels; Sanda Jegere; Hyo-Soo Kim; Allison M Dunning; Tony Defrance; Alexandra Lansky; Jonathon Leipsic Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Dennis T L Wong; Brian S Ko; James D Cameron; Nitesh Nerlekar; Michael C H Leung; Yuvaraj Malaiapan; Marcus Crossett; Darryl P Leong; Stephen G Worthley; John Troupis; Ian T Meredith; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Antonio Maria Leone; Italo Porto; Alberto Ranieri De Caterina; Eloisa Basile; Andrea Aurelio; Andrea Gardi; Dolores Russo; Domenico Laezza; Giampaolo Niccoli; Francesco Burzotta; Carlo Trani; Mario Attilio Mazzari; Rocco Mongiardo; Antonio Giuseppe Rebuzzi; Filippo Crea Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Rine Nakanishi; Suguru Matsumoto; Anas Alani; Dong Li; Pieter H Kitslaar; Alexander Broersen; Bon-Kwon Koo; James K Min; Matthew J Budoff Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Brian S Ko; Sujith Seneviratne; James D Cameron; Sarah Gutman; Marcus Crossett; Kiran Munnur; Ian T Meredith; Dennis T L Wong Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Francesco Secchi; Marco Alì; Elena Faggiano; Paola Maria Cannaò; Marco Fedele; Silvia Tresoldi; Giovanni Di Leo; Ferdinando Auricchio; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Heart J Suppl Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 1.803