Julien Adjedj1, Panagiotis Xaplanteris1, Gabor Toth1, Angela Ferrara1, Mariano Pellicano1, Giovanni Ciccarelli1, Vincent Floré1, Emanuele Barbato1, Bernard De Bruyne2. 1. From the Cardiovascular Center Aalst, Belgium (J.A., P.X., A.F., M.P., G.C., V.F., E.B., B.D.B.); and Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy (E.B.). 2. From the Cardiovascular Center Aalst, Belgium (J.A., P.X., A.F., M.P., G.C., V.F., E.B., B.D.B.); and Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy (E.B.). bernard.de.bruyne@olvz-aalst.be.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The correlation between angiographic assessment of coronary stenoses and fractional flow reserve (FFR) is weak. Whether and how risk factors impact the diagnostic accuracy of angiography is unknown. We sought to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of angiography by visual estimate and by quantitative coronary angiography when compared with FFR and evaluate the influence of risk factors (RF) on this accuracy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 1382 coronary stenoses (1104 patients), percent diameter stenosis by visual estimation (DSVE) and by quantitative coronary angiography (DSQCA) was compared with FFR. Patients were divided into 4 subgroups, according to the presence of RFs, and the relationship between DSVE, DSQCA, and FFR was analyzed. Overall, DSVE was significantly higher than DSQCA (P<0.0001); nonetheless, when examined by strata of DS, DSVE was significantly smaller than DSQCA in mild stenoses, although the reverse held true for severe stenoses. Compared with FFR, a large scatter was observed for both DSVE and DSQCA. When using a dichotomous FFR value of 0.80, C statistic was significantly higher for DSVE than for DSQCA (0.712 versus 0.640, respectively; P<0.001). C statistics for DSVE decreased progressively as RFs accumulated (0.776 for ≤1 RF, 0.750 for 2 RFs, 0.713 for 3 RFs and 0.627 for ≥4 RFs; P=0.0053). In addition, in diabetics, the relationship between FFR and angiographic indices was particularly weak (C statistics: 0.524 for DSVE and 0.511 for DSQCA). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, DSVE has a better diagnostic accuracy than DSQCA to predict the functional significance of coronary stenosis. The predictive accuracy of angiography is moderate in patients with ≤1 RFs, but weakens as RFs accumulate, especially in diabetics.
BACKGROUND: The correlation between angiographic assessment of coronary stenoses and fractional flow reserve (FFR) is weak. Whether and how risk factors impact the diagnostic accuracy of angiography is unknown. We sought to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of angiography by visual estimate and by quantitative coronary angiography when compared with FFR and evaluate the influence of risk factors (RF) on this accuracy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 1382 coronary stenoses (1104 patients), percent diameter stenosis by visual estimation (DSVE) and by quantitative coronary angiography (DSQCA) was compared with FFR. Patients were divided into 4 subgroups, according to the presence of RFs, and the relationship between DSVE, DSQCA, and FFR was analyzed. Overall, DSVE was significantly higher than DSQCA (P<0.0001); nonetheless, when examined by strata of DS, DSVE was significantly smaller than DSQCA in mild stenoses, although the reverse held true for severe stenoses. Compared with FFR, a large scatter was observed for both DSVE and DSQCA. When using a dichotomous FFR value of 0.80, C statistic was significantly higher for DSVE than for DSQCA (0.712 versus 0.640, respectively; P<0.001). C statistics for DSVE decreased progressively as RFs accumulated (0.776 for ≤1 RF, 0.750 for 2 RFs, 0.713 for 3 RFs and 0.627 for ≥4 RFs; P=0.0053). In addition, in diabetics, the relationship between FFR and angiographic indices was particularly weak (C statistics: 0.524 for DSVE and 0.511 for DSQCA). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, DSVE has a better diagnostic accuracy than DSQCA to predict the functional significance of coronary stenosis. The predictive accuracy of angiography is moderate in patients with ≤1 RFs, but weakens as RFs accumulate, especially in diabetics.
Authors: Yi Xue; Min Wen Zheng; Yang Hou; Fan Zhou; Jian Hua Li; Yi Ning Wang; Chun Yu Liu; Chang Sheng Zhou; Jia Yin Zhang; Meng Meng Yu; Bo Zhang; Dai Min Zhang; Yan Yi; Lei Xu; Xiu Hua Hu; Guang Ming Lu; Chun Xiang Tang; Long Jiang Zhang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Daixin Ding; Junqing Yang; Jelmer Westra; Yundai Chen; Yunxiao Chang; Martin Sejr-Hansen; Su Zhang; Evald H Christiansen; Niels R Holm; Bo Xu; Shengxian Tu Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2019-10
Authors: Michael Michail; Hakim-Moulay Dehbi; Nitesh Nerlekar; Justin E Davies; Andrew S P Sharp; Suneel Talwar; James D Cameron; Adam J Brown; Dennis T Wong; Anthony Mathur; Alun D Hughes; Om Narayan Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 2.692