| Literature DB >> 27704198 |
Adriaan Coenen1,2, Marisa M Lubbers3,4, Akira Kurata3, Atsushi Kono3, Admir Dedic3,4, Raluca G Chelu3,4, Marcel L Dijkshoorn3, Alexia Rossi3,5, Robert-Jan M van Geuns3,4, Koen Nieman3,4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the additional value of transmural perfusion ratio (TPR) in dynamic CT myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of haemodynamically significant coronary artery disease compared with fractional flow reserve (FFR).Entities:
Keywords: Coronary artery disease; Fractional flow reserve, myocardial; Perfusion; Tomography; X-ray computed
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27704198 PMCID: PMC5408049 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-016-4567-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
Fig. 1TPR case example: 65-year-old male presenting after exertional collapse. a Short-axis CT-MPI image with the transmural perfusion line placed in the anterior-lateral segment (white arrow). b The transmural MBF profile. The subendocardial MBF was 58 ml/100 ml/min (purple marker) and 91 ml/100 ml/min in the subepicardium (orange marker). The TPR was 0.64 (58/91) and thus considered positive for ischaemia. c Invasive angiography showing a stenosis in the proximal LAD with an FFR of 0.69. A subtotal stenosis was directly stented in the LCX (arrowhead); as such no FFR measurement was performed. In panel a however a perfusion defect with a transmural perfusion ratio can be seen in the territory associated with the LCX. The RCA was normal with an FFR of 0.91. RCA: right coronary artery, LAD: left anterior descending artery, LCX: left circumflex artery, TPR: transmural perfusion ratio, MBF: myocardial blood flow, FFR: fractional flow reserve
Fig. 2Inclusion flow chart
Patient characteristics
| Number of patients, | 43 |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 62.6 ± 8.7 |
| Male gender, | 36 (84) |
| Body mass index (kg/m2)* | 20.1 ± 2.3 |
| Body surface area (m2)* | 2.0 ± 0.14 |
| Cardiovascular risk factors, | |
| Hypertension | 27 (63) |
| Dyslipidaemia | 20 (47) |
| Diabetes | 7 (16) |
| Family history of CAD | 17 (40) |
| Smoking within the last year | 10 (22) |
| Prior myocardial infarction, | 8 (19) |
| Prior PCI, | 5 (12) |
| Agatston coronary calcium score‡ | 628 (265-1450) |
| Heart rate during rest | 63.4 ± 12.9 |
| Heart rate during hyperaemic CT-MPI. | 83.0 ± 13.7 |
Values are reported as mean and ± standard deviation or absolute number n and percentage (%). CAD, coronary artery disease; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention
*In four patients length and weight data were not available
†Not in the vessel territories interrogated by invasive FFR
‡Represented in median and (quartiles)
Fig. 3MBF and TPR: Median and mean myocardial blood flow and transmural perfusion ratio in 94 territories for normal (N = 46) and ischaemic (N = 48) territories. Normal territory defined as invasive FFR > 0.80, and ischaemic territories as FFR ≤ 0.80. FFR: fractional flow reserve
Fig. 4ROC: Receiver-operator curves for MBF and TPR validated against FFR using a threshold of 0.80 for haemodynamic significance. Area under the curve for MBF was 0.78 (95 % CI: 0.67-0.87), for TPR 0.65 (95 % CI: 0.53-0.77) and for MBF × TPR 0.71 (95 % CI: 0.60-0.82). The optimal diagnostic threshold was calculated at 76 ml/100 ml/min for MBF and 0.82 for TPR. MBF: myocardial blood flow, TPR: transmural perfusion ratio, FFR: fractional flow reserve, CI: confidence interval
Diagnostic performance
| All vessels ( | TP | FP | TN | FN | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MBF | 36 | 10 | 36 | 12 | 75 % (62-88 %) | 78 % (66-90 %) | 78 % (65-91 %) | 75 % (63-87 %) | 77 % (67-86 %) |
| TPR | 31 | 11 | 35 | 17 | 65 % (50-79 %) | 76 % (64-89 %) | 74 % (59-88 %) | 67 % (54-80 %) | 70 % (60-81 %) |
| MBF 50-100 ( | |||||||||
| MBF | 29 | 10 | 22 | 4 | 88 % (76-100 %) | 69 % (53-85 %) | 74 % (60-89 %) | 85 % (71-98 %) | 78 % (68-90 %) |
| TPR | 24 | 8 | 24 | 9 | 73 % (54-89 %) | 75 % (60-90 %) | 75 % (59-91 %) | 73 % (57-88 %) | 74 % (62-86 %) |
Diagnostic performance with invasive FFR using a threshold of ≤0.80. Territories with an MBF ≤76 ml/100 ml/min and TPR ≤0.82 were considered positive for ischaemia. A sub-analysis is made for territories with an intermediate MBF between 50 and 100 ml/100 ml/min. FFR: fractional flow reserve, MBF, myocardial blood flow, TPR: transmural perfusion ratio, PPV: positive predictive value, NPV: negative predictive value
Fig. 5Classification by MBF and TPR: Scatterplot showing the combined classification by MBF and TPR. The solid lines represent the diagnostic threshold for MBF (76) and TPR (0.82). A larger proportion of ischaemic territories was observed in the bottom left quarter, representing territories with a concordant abnormal MBF and TPR. The area between the two vertical dashed lines represents the territories with an intermediate MBF between 50 and 100 ml/100 ml/min. TPR: transmural perfusion ratio, MBF: myocardial blood flow, FFR: fractional flow reserve