BACKGROUND: Multifunction cardiogram (MCG) is a computer-enhanced, resting electrocardiogram analysis developed to detect hemodynamically relevant coronary artery disease (CAD). Based on data from previous studies suggesting excellent diagnostic accuracy in detecting CAD, MCG (approved by the Food and Drugs Administration) received a Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) code in 2010 in United States. However, there is no previous study validating MCG by using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard. METHODS: Multifunction cardiogram Evaluation in Diagnosis of Functional coronary Ischemia sTudy (MED-FIT) was designed as a single-center, prospective study enrolling 100 stable patients with suspected CAD scheduled for coronary angiography. The primary and secondary analyses evaluated the diagnostic performance of the MCG severity score to detect functional myocardial ischemia by FFR ≤0.80, and angiographically significant coronary stenosis (percent diameter stenosis ≥50%) by quantitative coronary angiography. RESULTS: The current analysis set consisted of 91 patients in whom MCG data with adequate quality was obtained. The prevalence of positive functional myocardial ischemia and angiographically significant stenosis in the current study was 42.7% and 41.8%, respectively. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of the MCG severity score for functional myocardial ischemia and angiographically significant stenosis was low (AUC 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.63, and AUC 0.58, 95%CI 0.46-0.70, respectively). Sensitivity, and specificity of the MCG severity score for functional myocardial ischemia and angiographically significant stenosis was also low (32%/67%, and 37%/72%) using a cutoff value of 4.0. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performance of the MCG severity score was poor for both functional myocardial ischemia, and angiographically significant stenosis.
BACKGROUND: Multifunction cardiogram (MCG) is a computer-enhanced, resting electrocardiogram analysis developed to detect hemodynamically relevant coronary artery disease (CAD). Based on data from previous studies suggesting excellent diagnostic accuracy in detecting CAD, MCG (approved by the Food and Drugs Administration) received a Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) code in 2010 in United States. However, there is no previous study validating MCG by using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard. METHODS: Multifunction cardiogram Evaluation in Diagnosis of Functional coronary Ischemia sTudy (MED-FIT) was designed as a single-center, prospective study enrolling 100 stable patients with suspected CAD scheduled for coronary angiography. The primary and secondary analyses evaluated the diagnostic performance of the MCG severity score to detect functional myocardial ischemia by FFR ≤0.80, and angiographically significant coronary stenosis (percent diameter stenosis ≥50%) by quantitative coronary angiography. RESULTS: The current analysis set consisted of 91 patients in whom MCG data with adequate quality was obtained. The prevalence of positive functional myocardial ischemia and angiographically significant stenosis in the current study was 42.7% and 41.8%, respectively. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of the MCG severity score for functional myocardial ischemia and angiographically significant stenosis was low (AUC 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.63, and AUC 0.58, 95%CI 0.46-0.70, respectively). Sensitivity, and specificity of the MCG severity score for functional myocardial ischemia and angiographically significant stenosis was also low (32%/67%, and 37%/72%) using a cutoff value of 4.0. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performance of the MCG severity score was poor for both functional myocardial ischemia, and angiographically significant stenosis.
Authors: Philip H Jung; Johannes Rieber; Stefan Störk; Caroline Hoyer; Isabelle Erhardt; Anja Nowotny; Wolfram Voelker; Frank Weidemann; Georg Ertl; Volker Klauss; Christiane E Angermann Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Narbeh Melikian; Pieter De Bondt; Pim Tonino; Olivier De Winter; Eric Wyffels; Jozef Bartunek; Guy R Heyndrickx; William F Fearon; Nico H J Pijls; William Wijns; Bernard De Bruyne Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 11.195
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: Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Bindu Kalesan; Emanuele Barbato; Pim A L Tonino; Zsolt Piroth; Nikola Jagic; Sven Möbius-Winkler; Sven Mobius-Winckler; Gilles Rioufol; Nils Witt; Petr Kala; Philip MacCarthy; Thomas Engström; Keith G Oldroyd; Kreton Mavromatis; Ganesh Manoharan; Peter Verlee; Ole Frobert; Nick Curzen; Jane B Johnson; Peter Jüni; William F Fearon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kiran R Nandalur; Ben A Dwamena; Asim F Choudhri; Mohan R Nandalur; Ruth C Carlos Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-09-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Eberhard Grube; Andreas Bootsveld; Lutz Buellesfeld; Seyrani Yuecel; Joseph T Shen; Michael Imhoff Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2008-03-02 Impact factor: 3.738