Quantitative Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography: Does It Predict Functionally Significant Coronary Stenoses?

Background—Coronary lesions with a diameter narrowing ≥50% on visual computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTCA) are generally considered for referral to invasive coronary angiography. However, similar to invasive coronary angiography, visual CTCA is often inaccurate in detecting functionally significant coronary lesions. We sought to compare the diagnostic performance of quantitative CTCA with visual CTCA for the detection of functionally significant coronary lesions using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard. Methods and Results—CTCA and FFR measurements were obtained in 99 symptomatic patients. In total, 144 coronary lesions detected on CTCA were visually graded for stenosis severity. Quantitative CTCA measurements included lesion length, minimal area diameter, % area stenosis, minimal lumen diameter, % diameter stenosis, and plaque burden [(vessel area−lumen area)/vessel area×100]. Optimal cutoff values of CTCA-derived parameters were determined, and their diagnostic accuracy for the detection of flow-limiting coronary lesions (FFR ⩽0.80) was compared with visual CTCA. FFR was ⩽0.80 in 54 of 144 (38%) coronary lesions. Optimal cutoff values to predict flow-limiting coronary lesion were 10 mm for lesion length, 1.8 mm2 for minimal area diameter, 73% for % area stenosis, 1.5 mm for minimal lumen diameter, 48% for % diameter stenosis, and 76% for plaque burden. No significant difference in sensitivity was found between visual CTCA and quantitative CTCA parameters (P>0.05). The specificity of visual CTCA (42%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31%–54%) was lower than that of minimal area diameter (68%; 95% CI, 57%–77%; P=0.001), % area stenosis (76%; 95% CI, 65%–84%; P<0.001), minimal lumen diameter (67%; 95% CI, 55%–76%; P=0.001), % diameter stenosis (72%; 95% CI, 62%–80%; P<0.001), and plaque burden (63%; 95% CI, 52%–73%; P=0.004). The specificity of lesion length was comparable with that of visual CTCA. Conclusions—Quantitative CTCA improves the prediction of functionally significant coronary lesions compared with visual CTCA assessment but remains insufficient. Functional assessment is still required in lesions of moderate stenosis to accurately detect impaired FFR.

[1]  Marcel van Straten,et al.  Image quality and radiation exposure using different low-dose scan protocols in dual-source CT coronary angiography: randomized study. , 2011, Radiology.

[2]  M. Reiser,et al.  Detection of hemodynamically significant coronary artery stenosis: incremental diagnostic value of dynamic CT-based myocardial perfusion imaging. , 2011, Radiology.

[3]  W. Wijns,et al.  On the inappropriateness of noninvasive multidetector computed tomography coronary angiography to trigger coronary revascularization: a comparison with invasive angiography. , 2009, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[4]  Seung‐Jung Park,et al.  Validation of Intravascular Ultrasound–Derived Parameters With Fractional Flow Reserve for Assessment of Coronary Stenosis Severity , 2011, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[5]  Susan Veldhof,et al.  Natural history of coronary atherosclerosis by multislice computed tomography. , 2012, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[6]  E. Klotz,et al.  Quantification of myocardial blood flow by adenosine-stress CT perfusion imaging in pigs during various degrees of stenosis correlates well with coronary artery blood flow and fractional flow reserve. , 2013, European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging.

[7]  Volkmar Falk,et al.  Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (esc) and the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery (eacts) Developed with the Special Contribution of the European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular I , 2022 .

[8]  Woo-Young Chung,et al.  Optimal intravascular ultrasound criteria and their accuracy for defining the functional significance of intermediate coronary stenoses of different locations. , 2011, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[9]  M. Nielsen,et al.  Correlation between coronary computed tomographic angiography and fractional flow reserve. , 2010, International journal of cardiology.

[10]  David Moher,et al.  The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[11]  R. Bonow,et al.  Obstructive coronary atherosclerosis and ischemic heart disease: an elusive link! , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  M. Budoff,et al.  Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Indi , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  S. Petersen,et al.  Diagnostic performance of hyperaemic myocardial blood flow index obtained by dynamic computed tomography: does it predict functionally significant coronary lesions? , 2014, European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging.

[14]  N. Paul,et al.  Coronary CT angiography using 64 detector rows: methods and design of the multi-centre trial CORE-64 , 2008, European Radiology.

[15]  Mathias Prokop,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  K Suzuki,et al.  Clinical potential of intravascular ultrasound for physiological assessment of coronary stenosis: relationship between quantitative ultrasound tomography and pressure-derived fractional flow reserve. , 1999, Circulation.

[17]  Seung‐Jung Park,et al.  Contemporary Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine Paradigm Shift to Functional Angioplasty New Insights for Fractional Flow Reserve- and Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , 2011 .

[18]  M. Reiser,et al.  Accuracy of Dynamic Computed Tomography Adenosine Stress Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Estimating Myocardial Blood Flow at Various Degrees of Coronary Artery Stenosis Using a Porcine Animal Model , 2012, Investigative radiology.

[19]  Kia-Chong Chua,et al.  Stress and rest dynamic myocardial perfusion imaging by evaluation of complete time-attenuation curves with dual-source CT. , 2010, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[20]  K. Gould,et al.  Does coronary flow trump coronary anatomy? , 2009, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[21]  A. Dunning,et al.  Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) study. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[22]  D. Rennie,et al.  The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. , 2003, Annals of internal medicine.

[23]  N. Paul,et al.  Perioperative β-Blockers : Use With Caution Perioperative β Blockers in Patients Having Non-Cardiac Surgery : A Meta-Analysis , 2010 .

[24]  F. Eberli,et al.  Functionally relevant coronary artery disease: comparison of 64-section CT angiography with myocardial perfusion SPECT. , 2008, Radiology.

[25]  Jouke Dijkstra,et al.  Automated quantification of coronary plaque with computed tomography: comparison with intravascular ultrasound using a dedicated registration algorithm for fusion-based quantification. , 2012, European heart journal.

[26]  Michael J Pencina,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. , 2012, JAMA.

[27]  I. Meredith,et al.  Computed tomography stress myocardial perfusion imaging in patients considered for revascularization: a comparison with fractional flow reserve. , 2012, European Heart Journal.

[28]  D. Berman,et al.  Comparison of the Short‐Term Survival Benefit Associated With Revascularization Compared With Medical Therapy in Patients With No Prior Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Stress Myocardial Perfusion Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography , 2003, Circulation.

[29]  B. Gersh,et al.  Angiographic Versus Functional Severity of Coronary Artery Stenoses in the FAME Study: Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography in Multivessel Evaluation , 2011 .

[30]  U. Siebert,et al.  Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  N. Paul,et al.  Quantitative coronary arterial stenosis assessment by multidetector CT and invasive coronary angiography for identifying patients with myocardial perfusion abnormalities , 2012, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology.

[32]  Volkmar Falk,et al.  Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. , 2010, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[33]  D. Berman,et al.  Clinical validation of intravascular ultrasound imaging for assessment of coronary stenosis severity: comparison with stress myocardial perfusion imaging. , 1999, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[34]  Jouke Dijkstra,et al.  Automated quantification of stenosis severity on 64-slice CT: a comparison with quantitative coronary angiography. , 2010, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[35]  Patrick W Serruys,et al.  Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses: computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography and correlation with fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[36]  J. Koolen,et al.  Coronary Pressure Measurement to Assess the Hemodynamic Significance of Serial Stenoses Within One Coronary Artery: Validation in Humans , 2000, Circulation.

[37]  K. Gould,et al.  Pressure-derived fractional flow reserve to assess serial epicardial stenoses: theoretical basis and animal validation. , 2000, Circulation.