Christian Tesche1, Carlo N De Cecco2, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart3, Taylor M Duguay4, Andrew C Stubenrauch4, Russell D Rosenberg5, Akos Varga-Szemes4, Richard R Bayer5, Junjie Yang6, Ullrich Ebersberger1, Moritz Baquet7, David Jochheim7, Ellen Hoffmann8, Daniel H Steinberg9, Salvatore A Chiaramida9, U Joseph Schoepf10. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Department of Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Heart Center Munich-Bogenhausen, Munich, Germany. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, University of Rome "Sapienza", Rome, Italy. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiology, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 6. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Department of Cardiology, People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China. 7. Department of Cardiology, Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. 8. Department of Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Heart Center Munich-Bogenhausen, Munich, Germany. 9. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 10. Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. Electronic address: schoepf@musc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate quantitative markers derived from coronary CT angiography (coronary CTA) performed prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent placement for predicting in-stent restenosis (ISR) as defined by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 74 patients (60 ± 12 years, 72% male) who had undergone dual-source coronary CTA within 3 months prior to a PCI procedure that included stent placement. Quantitative markers of the target vessel were derived from coronary CTA: Total plaque volume (TPV), calcified and non-calcified plaque volumes (CPV and NCPV), plaque burden (PB in %), remodeling index (RI), and lesion length (LL). Marker performance for predicting ISR, as defined by QCA at follow-up, was assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 74 stented lesions showed ISR on follow-up (mean 616 ± 447 days). When comparing stent length and LL in patients with ISR, a trend towards less complete stent coverage of the target lesion was observed in cases with ISR (17/21 vs. 4/53 cases, p = 0.07). In multivariate analysis (corrected for dyslipidemia), the following markers showed predictive value for ISR (odds ratio [OR]): NCPV (OR 1.08, p = 0.045), LL (OR 1.38, p = 0.0024), and RI (OR 1.13, p = 0.0019). Sensitivity and specificity for ISR were: NCPV 65% and 80%, LL 74% and 74%, and RI 71% and 78%. At receiver-operating characteristics analysis, NCPV (0.72, p = 0.001), LL (0.77, p < 0.0001), and RI (0.79, p < 0.0001) showed discriminatory power for predicting ISR. A combination of these markers showed incremental predictive value (AUC 0.89, p < 0.0001) with sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 84%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Coronary CTA-derived NCPV, LL, and RI portend predictive value for ISR with incremental predictive value when combining these parameters.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate quantitative markers derived from coronary CT angiography (coronary CTA) performed prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent placement for predicting in-stent restenosis (ISR) as defined by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 74 patients (60 ± 12 years, 72% male) who had undergone dual-source coronary CTA within 3 months prior to a PCI procedure that included stent placement. Quantitative markers of the target vessel were derived from coronary CTA: Total plaque volume (TPV), calcified and non-calcified plaque volumes (CPV and NCPV), plaque burden (PB in %), remodeling index (RI), and lesion length (LL). Marker performance for predicting ISR, as defined by QCA at follow-up, was assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 74 stented lesions showed ISR on follow-up (mean 616 ± 447 days). When comparing stent length and LL in patients with ISR, a trend towards less complete stent coverage of the target lesion was observed in cases with ISR (17/21 vs. 4/53 cases, p = 0.07). In multivariate analysis (corrected for dyslipidemia), the following markers showed predictive value for ISR (odds ratio [OR]): NCPV (OR 1.08, p = 0.045), LL (OR 1.38, p = 0.0024), and RI (OR 1.13, p = 0.0019). Sensitivity and specificity for ISR were: NCPV 65% and 80%, LL 74% and 74%, and RI 71% and 78%. At receiver-operating characteristics analysis, NCPV (0.72, p = 0.001), LL (0.77, p < 0.0001), and RI (0.79, p < 0.0001) showed discriminatory power for predicting ISR. A combination of these markers showed incremental predictive value (AUC 0.89, p < 0.0001) with sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 84%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Coronary CTA-derived NCPV, LL, and RI portend predictive value for ISR with incremental predictive value when combining these parameters.
Authors: Junjie Yang; Guanhua Dou; Christian Tesche; Carlo N De Cecco; Brian E Jacobs; U Joseph Schoepf; Yundai Chen Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 2.298