PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion computed tomography (CT) by using visual and quantitative analytic methods in patients with coronary artery disease, with fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved the study, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion CT was assessed for 75 patients who underwent myocardial perfusion CT and conventional coronary angiography with reference to hemodynamically significant stenosis, defined as the presence of an FFR of 0.8 or less or an angiographically severe (≥90%) stenosis. Results of quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion CT data were compared with those of visual analysis by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs). RESULTS: Among the 75 patients and 210 epicardial arteries, 61 patients (81%) with 86 arteries (41%) had hemodynamically significant stenosis. The per-patient sensitivity and specificity of the visual assessment of myocardial perfusion CT data for all patients were 89% and 86%, respectively. At per-vessel analysis, the sensitivities and specificities, respectively, of myocardial perfusion CT were 80% and 95% for all vessels, 85% and 100% for 63 vessels with severe coronary calcification (defined as an Agatston score > 400), and 76% and 91% for 56 vessels in patients with multivessel disease. In severely calcified vessels, visual assessment of myocardial perfusion CT data in combination with CT angiography provided incremental value over CT angiography alone for the detection of myocardial ischemia (integrated discrimination improvement index, 0.38; P < .001). Quantitative assessment of transmural perfusion ratio had a lower AUC than visual analysis of myocardial perfusion CT (0.759 vs 0.877, P = .002). CONCLUSION: Stress myocardial perfusion CT provides incremental value over CT angiography in patients with a high calcium score for the detection of myocardial ischemia as defined by FFR.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion computed tomography (CT) by using visual and quantitative analytic methods in patients with coronary artery disease, with fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved the study, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion CT was assessed for 75 patients who underwent myocardial perfusion CT and conventional coronary angiography with reference to hemodynamically significant stenosis, defined as the presence of an FFR of 0.8 or less or an angiographically severe (≥90%) stenosis. Results of quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion CT data were compared with those of visual analysis by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs). RESULTS: Among the 75 patients and 210 epicardial arteries, 61 patients (81%) with 86 arteries (41%) had hemodynamically significant stenosis. The per-patient sensitivity and specificity of the visual assessment of myocardial perfusion CT data for all patients were 89% and 86%, respectively. At per-vessel analysis, the sensitivities and specificities, respectively, of myocardial perfusion CT were 80% and 95% for all vessels, 85% and 100% for 63 vessels with severe coronary calcification (defined as an Agatston score > 400), and 76% and 91% for 56 vessels in patients with multivessel disease. In severely calcified vessels, visual assessment of myocardial perfusion CT data in combination with CT angiography provided incremental value over CT angiography alone for the detection of myocardial ischemia (integrated discrimination improvement index, 0.38; P < .001). Quantitative assessment of transmural perfusion ratio had a lower AUC than visual analysis of myocardial perfusion CT (0.759 vs 0.877, P = .002). CONCLUSION:Stress myocardial perfusion CT provides incremental value over CT angiography in patients with a high calcium score for the detection of myocardial ischemia as defined by FFR.
Authors: Kelley R Branch; Ryan D Haley; Marcio Sommer Bittencourt; Amit R Patel; Edward Hulten; Ron Blankstein Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2017-10
Authors: Bryan C Ramsey; Amy E Field; Dustin M Thomas; Christopher A Pickett; Alisa J Leon; Bernard J Rubal Journal: Comp Med Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 0.982
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Sara Seitun; Alberto Clemente; Ludovico La Grutta; Patrizia Toia; Giuseppe Runza; Massimo Midiri; Erica Maffei Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2017-04
Authors: Giovanni Di Leo; Erica Fisci; Francesco Secchi; Marco Alì; Federico Ambrogi; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 5.315