Daixin Ding1,2, Junqing Yang3, Jelmer Westra4, Yundai Chen5, Yunxiao Chang1,2, Martin Sejr-Hansen4, Su Zhang1,2, Evald H Christiansen4, Niels R Holm4, Bo Xu6, Shengxian Tu1,2. 1. Biomedical Instrument Institute, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China. 2. Shanghai Med-X Engineering Research Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China. 3. Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangzhou 510055, China. 4. Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark. 5. Department of Cardiology, PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China. 6. Fu Wai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100037, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) enables reconstruction of a coronary artery in 3D from two angiographic image projections. This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-QCA vs. 2-dimensional (2D) QCA in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis, using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard. METHODS: All interrogated vessels in the FAVOR II China study and the FAVOR II Europe-Japan study were assessed by 2D-QCA and 3D-QCA according to standard operating procedures in core laboratories. QCA analysts were blinded to the corresponding FFR values. RESULTS: A total of 645 vessels from 576 patients with 3D-QCA, 2D-QCA, and FFR were analyzed. Using the conventional cut-off value of 50% for percent diameter stenosis (DS%), 3D-QCA was more accurate in predicting FFR ≤0.80 than 2D-QCA [accuracy 74.0% (95% CI: 69.9-77.7%) vs. 64.9% (95% CI: 61.3-68.7%), difference: 9.1%, P<0.001]. Sensitivity was higher by 3D-QCA compared with 2D-QCA [69.1% (95% CI: 63.0-75.1%) vs. 47.1% (95% CI: 40.5-53.6%), difference: 22.0%, P<0.001] and specificity was similar [76.5% (95% CI: 72.5-80.6%) vs. 74.4% (95% CI: 70.2-78.6%), difference: 2.1%, P=0.40]. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly higher for 3D-QCA than for 2D-QCA [0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84) vs. 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.71), P<0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: 3D-QCA demonstrated better diagnostic performance in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis compared with 2D-QCA, when FFR was used as the reference standard. 2019 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) enables reconstruction of a coronary artery in 3D from two angiographic image projections. This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-QCA vs. 2-dimensional (2D) QCA in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis, using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard. METHODS: All interrogated vessels in the FAVOR II China study and the FAVOR II Europe-Japan study were assessed by 2D-QCA and 3D-QCA according to standard operating procedures in core laboratories. QCA analysts were blinded to the corresponding FFR values. RESULTS: A total of 645 vessels from 576 patients with 3D-QCA, 2D-QCA, and FFR were analyzed. Using the conventional cut-off value of 50% for percent diameter stenosis (DS%), 3D-QCA was more accurate in predicting FFR ≤0.80 than 2D-QCA [accuracy 74.0% (95% CI: 69.9-77.7%) vs. 64.9% (95% CI: 61.3-68.7%), difference: 9.1%, P<0.001]. Sensitivity was higher by 3D-QCA compared with 2D-QCA [69.1% (95% CI: 63.0-75.1%) vs. 47.1% (95% CI: 40.5-53.6%), difference: 22.0%, P<0.001] and specificity was similar [76.5% (95% CI: 72.5-80.6%) vs. 74.4% (95% CI: 70.2-78.6%), difference: 2.1%, P=0.40]. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly higher for 3D-QCA than for 2D-QCA [0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84) vs. 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.71), P<0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: 3D-QCA demonstrated better diagnostic performance in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis compared with 2D-QCA, when FFR was used as the reference standard. 2019 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Authors: Joan C Tuinenburg; Gerhard Koning; Ellen Hekking; Colette Desjardins; François Harel; Luc Bilodeau; Anton W M van Weert; Jacques Lespérance; Johan H C Reiber Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Carlos Collet; Yoshinobu Onuma; Rafael Cavalcante; Maik Grundeken; Philippe Généreux; Jeffrey Popma; Ricardo Costa; Goran Stankovic; Shengxian Tu; Johan H C Reiber; Jean-Paul Aben; Jens Flensted Lassen; Yves Louvard; Alexandra Lansky; Patrick W Serruys Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Antonio Maria Leone; Alberto Ranieri De Caterina; Eloisa Basile; Andrea Gardi; Domenico Laezza; Mario Attilio Mazzari; Rocco Mongiardo; Rajesh Kharbanda; Florim Cuculi; Italo Porto; Giampaolo Niccoli; Francesco Burzotta; Carlo Trani; Adrian Paul Banning; Antonio Giuseppe Rebuzzi; Filippo Crea Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: M Meuwissen; S A Chamuleau; M Siebes; C E Schotborgh; K T Koch; R J de Winter; M Bax; A de Jong; J A Spaan; J J Piek Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-01-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Shengxian Tu; Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Clemens von Birgelen; Niels R Holm; Stylianos A Pyxaras; Indulis Kumsars; Ming Kai Lam; Ilona Valkenburg; Gabor G Toth; Yingguang Li; Javier Escaned; William Wijns; Johan H C Reiber Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Brahmajee K Nallamothu; John A Spertus; Alexandra J Lansky; David J Cohen; Philip G Jones; Faraz Kureshi; Gregory J Dehmer; Joseph P Drozda; Mary Norine Walsh; John E Brush; Gerald C Koenig; Thad F Waites; D Scott Gantt; George Kichura; Richard A Chazal; Peter K O'Brien; C Michael Valentine; John S Rumsfeld; Johan H C Reiber; Joann G Elmore; Richard A Krumholz; W Douglas Weaver; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Haibo Zhang; Lin Mu; Shuang Hu; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Alexandra J Lansky; Bo Xu; Georgios Bouras; David J Cohen; John A Spertus; Frederick A Masoudi; Jeptha P Curtis; Runlin Gao; Junbo Ge; Yuejin Yang; Jing Li; Xi Li; Xin Zheng; Yetong Li; Harlan M Krumholz; Lixin Jiang Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873