OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) alone, adenosine-stress myocardial perfusion assessed by computed tomography (CTP) alone, and coronary CTA + CTP by using a 16-cm Z-axis coverage scanner versus invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the clinical standard. BACKGROUND: Diagnostic performance of coronary CTA for in-stent restenosis detection is still challenging. Recently, CTP showed additional diagnostic power over coronary CTA in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. However, few data are available on CTP performance in patients with previous stent implantation. METHODS: Consecutive stable patients with previous coronary stenting referred for ICA were enrolled. All patients underwent stress myocardial CTP and rest CTP + coronary CTA. Invasive FFR was performed during ICA when clinically indicated. The diagnostic rate and diagnostic accuracy of coronary CTA, CTP, and coronary CTA + CTP were evaluated in stent-, territory-, and patient-based analyses. RESULTS: In the 150 enrolled patients (132 men; mean age 65.1 ± 9.1 years), the CTP diagnostic rate was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA in all analyses (territory based [96.7% vs. 91.1%; p < 0.0001] and patient based [96% vs. 68%; p < 0.0001]). When ICA was used as gold standard, CTP diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA in all analyses (territory based [92.1% vs. 85.5%, p < 0.03] and patient based [86.7% vs. 76.7%, p < 0.03]). The concordant coronary CTA + CTP assessment exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy values versus ICA (95.8% in the territory-based analysis). The diagnostic accuracy of CTP was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA (75% vs. 30.5%; p < 0.001). The radiation exposure of coronary CTA + CTP was 4.15 ± 1.5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coronary stents, CTP significantly improved the diagnostic rate and accuracy of coronary CTA alone compared with both ICA and invasive FFR as gold standard.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) alone, adenosine-stress myocardial perfusion assessed by computed tomography (CTP) alone, and coronary CTA + CTP by using a 16-cm Z-axis coverage scanner versus invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the clinical standard. BACKGROUND: Diagnostic performance of coronary CTA for in-stent restenosis detection is still challenging. Recently, CTP showed additional diagnostic power over coronary CTA in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. However, few data are available on CTP performance in patients with previous stent implantation. METHODS: Consecutive stable patients with previous coronary stenting referred for ICA were enrolled. All patients underwent stress myocardial CTP and rest CTP + coronary CTA. Invasive FFR was performed during ICA when clinically indicated. The diagnostic rate and diagnostic accuracy of coronary CTA, CTP, and coronary CTA + CTP were evaluated in stent-, territory-, and patient-based analyses. RESULTS: In the 150 enrolled patients (132 men; mean age 65.1 ± 9.1 years), the CTP diagnostic rate was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA in all analyses (territory based [96.7% vs. 91.1%; p < 0.0001] and patient based [96% vs. 68%; p < 0.0001]). When ICA was used as gold standard, CTP diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA in all analyses (territory based [92.1% vs. 85.5%, p < 0.03] and patient based [86.7% vs. 76.7%, p < 0.03]). The concordant coronary CTA + CTP assessment exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy values versus ICA (95.8% in the territory-based analysis). The diagnostic accuracy of CTP was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA (75% vs. 30.5%; p < 0.001). The radiation exposure of coronary CTA + CTP was 4.15 ± 1.5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coronary stents, CTP significantly improved the diagnostic rate and accuracy of coronary CTA alone compared with both ICA and invasive FFR as gold standard.
Authors: Gianluca Pontone; Alexia Rossi; Marco Guglielmo; Marc R Dweck; Oliver Gaemperli; Koen Nieman; Francesca Pugliese; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Alessia Gimelli; Bernard Cosyns; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 9.130
Authors: Eleonora Melotti; Marta Belmonte; Carlo Gigante; Vincenzo Mallia; Saima Mushtaq; Edoardo Conte; Danilo Neglia; Gianluca Pontone; Carlos Collet; Jeroen Sonck; Luca Grancini; Antonio L Bartorelli; Daniele Andreini Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-05-02
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: S H Kim; J Rübenthaler; D Nörenberg; T Huber; W G Kunz; W H Sommer; S O Schoenberg; S Janssen; D Overhoff; M F Froelich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Khaled M Abdelrahman; Marcus Y Chen; Amit K Dey; Renu Virmani; Aloke V Finn; Ramzi Y Khamis; Andrew D Choi; James K Min; Michelle C Williams; Andrew J Buckler; Charles A Taylor; Campbell Rogers; Habib Samady; Charalambos Antoniades; Leslee J Shaw; Matthew J Budoff; Udo Hoffmann; Ron Blankstein; Jagat Narula; Nehal N Mehta Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rami M Abazid; Yasmine T Sallam; Jonathan G Romsa; James C Warrington; Cigdem Akincioglu; Sabe De; Nikolaos Tzemos; William C Vezina Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2022-02-01