PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic value of coronary atherosclerotic burden, assessed by coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, and coronary vascular function, assessed by coronary flow reserve (CFR) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We studied 436 patients undergoing hybrid 82Rb positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. CAC score was measured according to the Agatston method, and patients were categorized into three groups (0, <400, and ≥400). CFR was calculated as the ratio of hyperemic to baseline myocardial blood flow, and it was considered reduced when <2. RESULTS: Follow-up was 94% complete during a mean period of 47±15 months. During follow-up, 17 events occurred (4% cumulative event rate). Event-free survival decreased with worsening of CAC score category (p < 0.001) and in patients with reduced CFR (p < 0.005). At multivariable analysis, CAC score ≥400 (p < 0.01) and CFR (p < 0.005) were independent predictors of events. Including CFR in the prognostic model, continuous net reclassification improvement was 0.51 (0.14 in patients with events and 0.37 in those without). At classification and regression tree analysis, the initial split was on CAC score. For patients with a CAC score < 400, no further split was performed, while patients with a CAC score ≥400 were further stratified by CFR values. Decision curve analyses indicate that the model including CFR resulted in a higher net benefit across a wide range of decision threshold probabilities. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected CAD, CFR provides significant incremental risk stratification over established cardiac risk factors and CAC score for prediction of adverse cardiac events.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic value of coronary atherosclerotic burden, assessed by coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, and coronary vascular function, assessed by coronary flow reserve (CFR) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We studied 436 patients undergoing hybrid 82Rb positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. CAC score was measured according to the Agatston method, and patients were categorized into three groups (0, <400, and ≥400). CFR was calculated as the ratio of hyperemic to baseline myocardial blood flow, and it was considered reduced when <2. RESULTS: Follow-up was 94% complete during a mean period of 47±15 months. During follow-up, 17 events occurred (4% cumulative event rate). Event-free survival decreased with worsening of CAC score category (p < 0.001) and in patients with reduced CFR (p < 0.005). At multivariable analysis, CAC score ≥400 (p < 0.01) and CFR (p < 0.005) were independent predictors of events. Including CFR in the prognostic model, continuous net reclassification improvement was 0.51 (0.14 in patients with events and 0.37 in those without). At classification and regression tree analysis, the initial split was on CAC score. For patients with a CAC score < 400, no further split was performed, while patients with a CAC score ≥400 were further stratified by CFR values. Decision curve analyses indicate that the model including CFR resulted in a higher net benefit across a wide range of decision threshold probabilities. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected CAD, CFR provides significant incremental risk stratification over established cardiac risk factors and CAC score for prediction of adverse cardiac events.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Daniel S Berman; Rory Hachamovitch; Leslee J Shaw; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; David S Fieno; Guido Germano; Nathan D Wong; Xingping Kang; Alan Rozanski Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Maarten L Simoons; Bernard R Chaitman; Harvey D White; Hugo A Katus; Bertil Lindahl; David A Morrow; Peter M Clemmensen; Per Johanson; Hanoch Hod; Richard Underwood; Jeroen J Bax; Robert O Bonow; Fausto Pinto; Raymond J Gibbons; Keith A Fox; Dan Atar; L Kristin Newby; Marcello Galvani; Christian W Hamm; Barry F Uretsky; Ph Gabriel Steg; William Wijns; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Phillippe Menasché; Jan Ravkilde; E Magnus Ohman; Elliott M Antman; Lars C Wallentin; Paul W Armstrong; Maarten L Simoons; James L Januzzi; Markku S Nieminen; Mihai Gheorghiade; Gerasimos Filippatos; Russell V Luepker; Stephen P Fortmann; Wayne D Rosamond; Dan Levy; David Wood; Sidney C Smith; Dayi Hu; José-Luis Lopez-Sendon; Rose Marie Robertson; Douglas Weaver; Michal Tendera; Alfred A Bove; Alexander N Parkhomenko; Elena J Vasilieva; Shanti Mendis Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kevin A Bybee; John Lee; Richard Markiewicz; Ryan Longmore; A Iain McGhie; James H O'Keefe; Bai-Ling Hsu; Kevin Kennedy; Randall C Thompson; Timothy M Bateman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-12-11 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Ida K B Rasmussen; Philip Hasbak; Bernt J von Scholten; Jens C Laursen; Emilie H Zobel; Lars Jorge Diaz; Lene Holmvang; Rasmus S Ripa; Peter Rossing; Andreas Kjaer; Tine W Hansen Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Elia von Felten; Dominik C Benz; Georgios Benetos; Jessica Baehler; Dimitri Patriki; Georgios P Rampidis; Andreas A Giannopoulos; Adam Bakula; Christoph Gräni; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Catherine Gebhard; Tobias A Fuchs; Philipp A Kaufmann; Ronny R Buechel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mohammed El Mahdiui; Jeff M Smit; Alexander R van Rosendael; J Wouter Jukema; Jeroen J Bax; Arthur J H A Scholte Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 5.952