L Nissen1, S Winther2, J Westra2, J A Ejlersen3, C Isaksen4, A Rossi5, N R Holm2, G Urbonaviciene6, L C Gormsen7, L H Madsen1, E H Christiansen2, M Maeng2, L L Knudsen1, L Frost6, L Brix4, H E Bøtker2, S E Petersen5, M Bøttcher1. 1. Department of Cardiology, Hospital Unit West Jutland, Gl. Landevej 61, 7400 Herning, Denmark. 2. Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Regional Hospital West Jutland, Gl.landevej 61, 7400 Herning, Denmark. 4. Department of Radiology, Regional Hospital of Silkeborg, Falkevej 1A, 8600 Silkeborg, Denmark. 5. William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ UK. 6. Department of Cardiology, Regional Hospital of Silkeborg, Falkevej 1A, 8600 Silkeborg, Denmark. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.
Abstract
Aims: Perfusion scans after coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) may reduce unnecessary invasive coronary angiographies (ICAs). However, the diagnostic accuracy of perfusion scans after primary CCTA is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) against ICA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients suspected of CAD by CCTA. Methods and results: Included were consecutive patients (1675) referred to CCTA with symptoms of CAD and low/intermediate risk profile. Patients with suspected CAD based on CCTA were randomized 1:1 to CMR or MPS followed by ICA with FFR. Obstructive CAD was defined as FFR ≤ 0.80 or > 90% diameter stenosis by visual assessment. After initial CCTA, 392 patients (23%) were randomized; 197 to CMR and 195 to MPS. Perfusion scans and ICA were completed in 292 patients (CMR 148, MPS 144). Based on the ICA, 117/292 (40%) patients were classified with CAD. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) for CMR were 41%, 95% CI [28-54], 84% [75-91], 62% [45-78], and 68% [58-76], respectively. For the MPS group 36% [24-50], 94% [87-98], 81% [61-93], and 68% [59-76], respectively. Conclusion:Patients with low/intermediate CAD risk and a positive CCTA scan represent a challenge to perfusion techniques indicated by the low sensitivity of both CMR and MPS with FFR as a reference. The mechanisms underlying this discrepancy need further investigation.
RCT Entities:
Aims: Perfusion scans after coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) may reduce unnecessary invasive coronary angiographies (ICAs). However, the diagnostic accuracy of perfusion scans after primary CCTA is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) against ICA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients suspected of CAD by CCTA. Methods and results: Included were consecutive patients (1675) referred to CCTA with symptoms of CAD and low/intermediate risk profile. Patients with suspected CAD based on CCTA were randomized 1:1 to CMR or MPS followed by ICA with FFR. Obstructive CAD was defined as FFR ≤ 0.80 or > 90% diameter stenosis by visual assessment. After initial CCTA, 392 patients (23%) were randomized; 197 to CMR and 195 to MPS. Perfusion scans and ICA were completed in 292 patients (CMR 148, MPS 144). Based on the ICA, 117/292 (40%) patients were classified with CAD. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) for CMR were 41%, 95% CI [28-54], 84% [75-91], 62% [45-78], and 68% [58-76], respectively. For the MPS group 36% [24-50], 94% [87-98], 81% [61-93], and 68% [59-76], respectively. Conclusion:Patients with low/intermediate CAD risk and a positive CCTA scan represent a challenge to perfusion techniques indicated by the low sensitivity of both CMR and MPS with FFR as a reference. The mechanisms underlying this discrepancy need further investigation.
Authors: Jagat Narula; Y Chandrashekhar; Amir Ahmadi; Suhny Abbara; Daniel S Berman; Ron Blankstein; Jonathon Leipsic; David Newby; Edward D Nicol; Koen Nieman; Leslee Shaw; Todd C Villines; Michelle Williams; Harvey S Hecht Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2020-11-20
Authors: Waqas Ullah; Sohaib Roomi; Hafez M Abdullah; Maryam Mukhtar; Zain Ali; Ping Ye; Donald C Haas; Vincent M Figueredo Journal: Cardiol Res Date: 2020-05-03
Authors: Brian S Ko; Jesper J Linde; Abdul-Rahman Ihdayhid; Bjarne L Norgaard; Klaus F Kofoed; Mathias Sørgaard; Daniel Adams; Marcus Crossett; James D Cameron; Sujith K Seneviratne Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Morten Krogh Christiansen; Louise Nissen; Simon Winther; Peter Loof Møller; Lars Frost; Jane Kirk Johansen; Henrik Kjærulf Jensen; Daníel Guðbjartsson; Hilma Holm; Kári Stefánsson; Hans Erik Bøtker; Morten Bøttcher; Mette Nyegaard Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Martin Sejr-Hansen; Jelmer Westra; Simon Winther; Shengxian Tu; Louise Nissen; Lars Gormsen; Steffen E Petersen; June Ejlersen; Christin Isaksen; Hans Erik Bøtker; Morten Bøttcher; Evald H Christiansen; Niels Ramsing Holm Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Annette de Thurah; Ina Trolle Andersen; Andreas Bugge Tinggaard; Anders Hammerich Riis; Josephine Therkildsen; Hans Erik Bøtker; Morthen Bøttcher; Ellen-Margrethe Hauge Journal: RMD Open Date: 2020-01
Authors: Peter Loof Møller; Palle D Rohde; Simon Winther; Peter Breining; Louise Nissen; Anders Nykjaer; Morten Bøttcher; Mette Nyegaard; Mads Kjolby Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-04-16