Niels Peter Rønnow Sand1, Louise Nissen2, Simon Winther3, Steffen E Petersen4, Jelmer Westra5, Evald H Christiansen5, Pia Larsen6, Niels R Holm5, Christin Isaksen7, Grazina Urbonaviciene8, Lone Deibjerg9, Majed Husain9, Kristian K Thomsen9, Allan Rohold9, Hans Erik Bøtker5, Morten Bøttcher2. 1. Department of Cardiology, Hospital of Southwest Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark; Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: npsand@webspeed.dk. 2. Department of Cardiology, Hospital Unit West Jutland, Herning, Denmark. 3. Department of Cardiology, Hospital Unit West Jutland, Herning, Denmark; Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Aarhus, Denmark. 4. William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Barts Heart Centre, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, West Smithfield, London, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Aarhus, Denmark. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 7. Department of Radiology, Regional Hospital of Silkeborg, Silkeborg, Denmark. 8. Department of Cardiology, Regional Hospital of Silkeborg, Silkeborg, Denmark. 9. Department of Cardiology, Hospital of Southwest Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare head-to-head fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) (FFRCT) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) stress perfusion imaging for prediction of standard-of-care-guided coronary revascularization in patients with stable chest pain and obstructive coronary artery disease by coronary CTA. BACKGROUND: FFRCT is a novel modality for noninvasive functional testing. The clinical utility of FFRCT compared to CMR stress perfusion imaging in symptomatic patients with coronary artery disease is unknown. METHODS: Prospective study of patients (n = 110) with stable angina pectoris and 1 or more coronary stenosis ≥50% by coronary CTA. All patients underwent invasive coronary angiography. Revascularization was FFR-guided in stenoses ranging from 30% to 90%. FFRCT ≤0.80 in 1 or more coronary artery or a reversible perfusion defect (≥2 segments) by CMR categorized patients with ischemia. FFRCT and CMR were analyzed by core laboratories blinded for patient management. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients (35%) underwent revascularization. Per-patient diagnostic performance for identifying standard-of-care-guided revascularization, (95% confidence interval) yielded a sensitivity of 97% (86% to 100%) for FFRCT versus 47% (31% to 64%) for CMR, p < 0.001; corresponding specificity was 42% (30% to 54%) versus 88% (78% to 94%), p < 0.001; negative predictive value of 97% (91% to 100%) versus 76% (67% to 85%), p < 0.05; positive predictive value of 47% (36% to 58%) versus 67% (49% to 84%), p < 0.05; and accuracy of 61% (51% to 70%) versus 74% (64% to 82%), p > 0.05, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable chest pain referred to invasive coronary angiography based on coronary CTA, FFRCT and CMR yielded similar overall diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity for prediction of revascularization was highest for FFRCT, whereas specificity was highest for CMR.
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare head-to-head fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) (FFRCT) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) stress perfusion imaging for prediction of standard-of-care-guided coronary revascularization in patients with stable chest pain and obstructive coronary artery disease by coronary CTA. BACKGROUND: FFRCT is a novel modality for noninvasive functional testing. The clinical utility of FFRCT compared to CMR stress perfusion imaging in symptomatic patients with coronary artery disease is unknown. METHODS: Prospective study of patients (n = 110) with stable angina pectoris and 1 or more coronary stenosis ≥50% by coronary CTA. All patients underwent invasive coronary angiography. Revascularization was FFR-guided in stenoses ranging from 30% to 90%. FFRCT ≤0.80 in 1 or more coronary artery or a reversible perfusion defect (≥2 segments) by CMR categorized patients with ischemia. FFRCT and CMR were analyzed by core laboratories blinded for patient management. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients (35%) underwent revascularization. Per-patient diagnostic performance for identifying standard-of-care-guided revascularization, (95% confidence interval) yielded a sensitivity of 97% (86% to 100%) for FFRCT versus 47% (31% to 64%) for CMR, p < 0.001; corresponding specificity was 42% (30% to 54%) versus 88% (78% to 94%), p < 0.001; negative predictive value of 97% (91% to 100%) versus 76% (67% to 85%), p < 0.05; positive predictive value of 47% (36% to 58%) versus 67% (49% to 84%), p < 0.05; and accuracy of 61% (51% to 70%) versus 74% (64% to 82%), p > 0.05, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable chest pain referred to invasive coronary angiography based on coronary CTA, FFRCT and CMR yielded similar overall diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity for prediction of revascularization was highest for FFRCT, whereas specificity was highest for CMR.
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