Literature DB >> 35092523

Harmonizing multimodality imaging results using Bayesian analysis: the case of CT coronary angiography and CT-derived fractional flow reserve.

Timothy F Christian1, Ravi Marfatia2, Lu Q Chen2, Afiachukwu G Onuegbu2, Simcha Pollack2, Jane Cao2.   

Abstract

Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) may provide both anatomic and CT fractional flow reserve data (CTFFR). The objective is to use Bayesian analysis to develop a model wherein the probability of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) by CTFFR can be determined given the prior probability (P) of the combined clinical and CCTA result. 172 patients referred for CCTA and subsequently underwent coronary angiography were automatically referred to CTFFR analysis. A clinical P risk score (CRS) was calculated per patient. CCTA exams were scored using CAD-RADS classification. CTFFR results were generated. CAD was defined as ≥ 3 RAD class for CCTA and ≤ .80 by CTFFR. P was calculated using CCTA and CTFFR accuracy from a prior clinical trial: post-test P for the CCTA result used the CRS as the prior risk, and CTFFR P used the post-test CRS + CCTA P as the prior risk (tri-variable). Patients were classified for each model into low (< 5%), intermediate, (5-70%) and high (> 70%) risk groups. There were 100 patients (58%), who had significant CAD at angiography. 58 patients had discordant CCTA/CTFFR results. The inclusion of the CRS and CRS + CCTA in the prior progressively reduced the intermediate risk cohort from 83 to 41% (p < 0.0001). Correct classifications (low-risk, negative angiogram plus high-risk, positive angiogram) increased by model: CRS = 12%, CRS + CCTA = 25%, CRS + CTFFR = 33%, CRS + CCTA + CTFFR = 44% (p < 0.001). Incorrect classifications were reduced to 15%. The tri-variable model performed better than either CCTA or CTFFR alone for all patients and for the sub-group with discordant imaging results. Discrepant CCTA and CTFFR results are present in one third of patients. The use of both the CRS and CCTA as the prior risk synergistically maximized the accuracy of the accuracy of the CTFFR technique.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiac imaging; Coronary artery disease; Coronary computed tomographic angiography; Fractional flow reserve; Statistics

Year:  2022        PMID: 35092523     DOI: 10.1007/s10554-022-02530-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1569-5794            Impact factor:   2.357


  3 in total

1.  ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine.

Authors:  Robert C Hendel; Daniel S Berman; Marcelo F Di Carli; Paul A Heidenreich; Robert E Henkin; Patricia A Pellikka; Gerald M Pohost; Kim A Williams
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2009-05-18       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  The Denser the Merrier? The Developing Story of Vascular Calcification.

Authors:  Márcio Sommer Bittencourt
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 7.792

3.  C-reactive protein and reclassification of cardiovascular risk in the Framingham Heart Study.

Authors:  Peter W F Wilson; Michael Pencina; Paul Jacques; Jacob Selhub; Ralph D'Agostino; Christopher J O'Donnell
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2008-11-09
  3 in total
  1 in total

1.  The chest pain guidelines revisited: cherry picking from the frequentist tree.

Authors:  Timothy F Christian
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 3.872

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.