Mengmeng Yu1, Xu Dai1, Jianhong Deng1, Zhigang Lu2, Chengxing Shen2, Jiayin Zhang3. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, No. 600, Yishan Rd, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Cardiology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, No. 600, Yishan Rd, Shanghai, China. 3. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, No. 600, Yishan Rd, Shanghai, China. andrewssmu@msn.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the association between perivascular fat attenuation index (FAI) and hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions. METHODS: Patients with stable angina who underwent coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography and invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement within 2 weeks were retrospectively included. Lesion-based perivascular FAI, high-risk plaque features, total plaque volume (TPV), machine learning-based FFRCT, and other parameters were recorded. Lesions with invasive FFR ≤ 0.8 were considered functionally significant. RESULTS: This study included 167 patients with 219 lesions. Diameter stenosis (DS), lesion length, TPV, and perivascular FAI were significantly larger or longer in the group of hemodynamically significant lesions (FFR ≤ 0.8). In addition, smaller FFRCT value was associated with functionally significant lesions (0.720 ± 0.11 vs 0.846 ± 0.10, p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the hemodynamically significant and insignificant subgroups with respect to CT-derived high-risk plaque features. According to multivariate analysis, DS, TPV, and perivascular FAI were significant predictors of lesion-specific ischemia. When integrating DS, TPV, and perivascular FAI, the area under the curve (AUC) of this combined method was 0.821, which was similar to that of FFRCT (AUC, 0.821 vs 0.850; p = 0.426). The diagnostic accuracy of FFRCT was higher than that of the combined approach, but the difference was statistically insignificant (79.0% vs 74.0%, p = 0.093). CONCLUSIONS: Perivascular FAI was significantly higher for flow-limiting lesions than for non-flow-limiting lesions. The combined use of FAI, TPV, and DS could predict ischemic coronary stenosis with high diagnostic accuracy. KEY POINTS: • Perivascular FAI was significantly higher for flow-limiting lesions than for non-flow-limiting lesions. • Combined use of FAI, plaque volume, and DS provided diagnostic performance comparable to that of machine learning-based FFR CTfor predicting ischemic coronary stenosis. • No significant difference was found between the hemodynamically significant and insignificant subgroups with respect to CT-derived high-risk plaque features.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the association between perivascular fat attenuation index (FAI) and hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions. METHODS:Patients with stable angina who underwent coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography and invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement within 2 weeks were retrospectively included. Lesion-based perivascular FAI, high-risk plaque features, total plaque volume (TPV), machine learning-based FFRCT, and other parameters were recorded. Lesions with invasive FFR ≤ 0.8 were considered functionally significant. RESULTS: This study included 167 patients with 219 lesions. Diameter stenosis (DS), lesion length, TPV, and perivascular FAI were significantly larger or longer in the group of hemodynamically significant lesions (FFR ≤ 0.8). In addition, smaller FFRCT value was associated with functionally significant lesions (0.720 ± 0.11 vs 0.846 ± 0.10, p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the hemodynamically significant and insignificant subgroups with respect to CT-derived high-risk plaque features. According to multivariate analysis, DS, TPV, and perivascular FAI were significant predictors of lesion-specific ischemia. When integrating DS, TPV, and perivascular FAI, the area under the curve (AUC) of this combined method was 0.821, which was similar to that of FFRCT (AUC, 0.821 vs 0.850; p = 0.426). The diagnostic accuracy of FFRCT was higher than that of the combined approach, but the difference was statistically insignificant (79.0% vs 74.0%, p = 0.093). CONCLUSIONS: Perivascular FAI was significantly higher for flow-limiting lesions than for non-flow-limiting lesions. The combined use of FAI, TPV, and DS could predict ischemic coronary stenosis with high diagnostic accuracy. KEY POINTS: • Perivascular FAI was significantly higher for flow-limiting lesions than for non-flow-limiting lesions. • Combined use of FAI, plaque volume, and DS provided diagnostic performance comparable to that of machine learning-based FFR CTfor predicting ischemic coronary stenosis. • No significant difference was found between the hemodynamically significant and insignificant subgroups with respect to CT-derived high-risk plaque features.
Authors: Markus Goeller; Stephan Achenbach; Sebastien Cadet; Alan C Kwan; Frederic Commandeur; Piotr J Slomka; Heidi Gransar; Moritz H Albrecht; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Daniel S Berman; Mohamed Marwan; Damini Dey Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Panagiotis K Siogkas; Constantinos D Anagnostopoulos; Riccardo Liga; Themis P Exarchos; Antonis I Sakellarios; George Rigas; Arthur J H A Scholte; M I Papafaklis; Dimitra Loggitsi; Gualtiero Pelosi; Oberdan Parodi; Teemu Maaniitty; Lampros K Michalis; Juhani Knuuti; Danilo Neglia; Dimitrios I Fotiadis Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Salvatore Brugaletta; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Zhu Jun Shen; Josep Gomez-Lara; Roberto Diletti; Giovanna Sarno; Nieves Gonzalo; William Wijns; Bernard de Bruyne; Fernando Alfonso; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-02-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Julie M Miller; Carlos E Rochitte; Marc Dewey; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Hiroyuki Niinuma; Ilan Gottlieb; Narinder Paul; Melvin E Clouse; Edward P Shapiro; John Hoe; Albert C Lardo; David E Bush; Albert de Roos; Christopher Cox; Jeffery Brinker; João A C Lima Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christian Tesche; Carlo N De Cecco; Stefan Baumann; Matthias Renker; Tindal W McLaurin; Taylor M Duguay; Richard R Bayer; Daniel H Steinberg; Katharine L Grant; Christian Canstein; Chris Schwemmer; Max Schoebinger; Lucian M Itu; Saikiran Rapaka; Puneet Sharma; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Shahar Lavi; Joseph P McConnell; Charanjit S Rihal; Abhiram Prasad; Verghese Mathew; Lilach O Lerman; Amir Lerman Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-05-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; David Dowe; James G Jollis; Michael Gitter; John Sutherland; Edward Halamert; Markus Scherer; Raye Bellinger; Arthur Martin; Robert Benton; Augustin Delago; James K Min Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-11-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Pedro Covas; Eison De Guzman; Ian Barrows; Andrew J Bradley; Brian G Choi; Joseph M Krepp; Jannet F Lewis; Richard Katz; Cynthia M Tracy; Robert K Zeman; James P Earls; Andrew D Choi Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-03-21
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; Suvasini Lakshmanan; Peter P Toth; Harvey S Hecht; Leslee J Shaw; David J Maron; Erin D Michos; Kim A Williams; Khurram Nasir; Andrew D Choi; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; James Min; Michael Blaha Journal: Am J Prev Cardiol Date: 2022-01-20
Authors: Jeremy Yuvaraj; Kevin Cheng; Andrew Lin; Peter J Psaltis; Stephen J Nicholls; Dennis T L Wong Journal: Cells Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 6.600
Authors: Runlei Ma; Marly van Assen; Daan Ties; Gert Jan Pelgrim; Randy van Dijk; Grigory Sidorenkov; Peter M A van Ooijen; Pim van der Harst; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 5.315