Yan Yi1, Cheng Xu2, Wei Wu3, Yun Wang4, Yu-Mei Li5, Ying-Qian Ge6, Zhu-Jun Shen7, Jia-Yin Zhang8, Bin Lu9, Zheng-Yu Jin10, Yi-Ning Wang11. 1. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China. Electronic address: yiyan_easy@163.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China. Electronic address: 15776465669@163.com. 3. Department of Cardiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China. Electronic address: camsww@hotmail.com. 4. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China. Electronic address: wangyun8637@163.com. 5. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China. Electronic address: liyumei1437@126.com. 6. Siemens Healthineers, Shanghai, 201318, China. Electronic address: yingqian.ge@siemens-healthineers.com. 7. Department of Cardiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China. Electronic address: zhujun66shen@126.com. 8. The Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, 200233, China. Electronic address: andrewssmu@msn.com. 9. Department of Radiology, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100037, China. Electronic address: bluvip@126.com. 10. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China. Electronic address: jin_zhengyu@163.com. 11. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China. Electronic address: wangyining@pumch.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimization of myocardial CT perfusion (CTP) assessment remains inconsistent and uncertain. Our aim was to explore the superior analysis selection and incremental improvement of myocardial blood flow (MBF) assessment on CTP in diagnosing hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Sixty patients (43 men and 17 women; 61.38 ± 8.01 years) were prospectively recruited and underwent stress dynamic myocardial CTP examinations. Absolute and relative MBF was used for ischemia evaluation with the invasive coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve were used as the reference standard. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and cutoff values were calculated and compared. RESULTS: There were 151 vessels in 60 patients finally enrolled for analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy for the absolute MBF value and relative MBF ratio were 82.76%, 98.92%, 97.96%, 90.20%, and 92.72% and 74.14%, 93.56%, 87.76%, 85.29%, and 86.09%, respectively. The absolute MBF value was superior than the relative MBF ratio in detecting ischemia (AUC, 0.955 [95%CI: 0.919-0.990] vs.0.906 [95%CI:0.857-0.954])(P = 0.02). For territories with both sensitivity and specificity ≤90%, the diagnostic accuracy increased from 79.1% to 88.4% when the specific data were assessed using the absolute MBF value instead of the relative MBF ratio. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute MBF value from the endocardial myocardium on stress dynamic myocardial CTP showed superior diagnostic performance compared to the relative MBF ratio for the detection of myocardial ischemia in intermediate-to-high risk patients. The absolute MBF value provides an incremental benefit toward diagnostic performance for the relative MBF ratio evaluation.
BACKGROUND: The optimization of myocardial CT perfusion (CTP) assessment remains inconsistent and uncertain. Our aim was to explore the superior analysis selection and incremental improvement of myocardial blood flow (MBF) assessment on CTP in diagnosing hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Sixty patients (43 men and 17 women; 61.38 ± 8.01 years) were prospectively recruited and underwent stress dynamic myocardial CTP examinations. Absolute and relative MBF was used for ischemia evaluation with the invasive coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve were used as the reference standard. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and cutoff values were calculated and compared. RESULTS: There were 151 vessels in 60 patients finally enrolled for analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy for the absolute MBF value and relative MBF ratio were 82.76%, 98.92%, 97.96%, 90.20%, and 92.72% and 74.14%, 93.56%, 87.76%, 85.29%, and 86.09%, respectively. The absolute MBF value was superior than the relative MBF ratio in detecting ischemia (AUC, 0.955 [95%CI: 0.919-0.990] vs.0.906 [95%CI:0.857-0.954])(P = 0.02). For territories with both sensitivity and specificity ≤90%, the diagnostic accuracy increased from 79.1% to 88.4% when the specific data were assessed using the absolute MBF value instead of the relative MBF ratio. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute MBF value from the endocardial myocardium on stress dynamic myocardial CTP showed superior diagnostic performance compared to the relative MBF ratio for the detection of myocardial ischemia in intermediate-to-high risk patients. The absolute MBF value provides an incremental benefit toward diagnostic performance for the relative MBF ratio evaluation.
Authors: Todd C Villines; Subhi J Al'Aref; Daniele Andreini; Marcus Y Chen; Andrew D Choi; Carlo N De Cecco; Damini Dey; James P Earls; Maros Ferencik; Heidi Gransar; Harvey Hecht; Jonathon A Leipsic; Michael T Lu; Mohamed Marwan; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; Edward Nicol; Gianluca Pontone; Jonathan Weir-McCall; Seamus P Whelton; Michelle C Williams; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Gudrun M Feuchtner Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2021-02-22