Key result
Cardiogoniometry demonstrated poor diagnostic accuracy for detecting physiologically significant coronary stenosis at rest (sensitivity 33.3%, specificity 63.0%) and during maximal hyperaemia (sensitivity 71.4%, specificity 50.0%).
Why the study?
Does cardiogoniometry accurately detect physiologically significant coronary stenosis as defined by fractional flow reserve in patients with single vessel coronary artery disease?
Observational (n=45)
Double-blind
No
Does cardiogoniometry accurately detect physiologically significant coronary stenosis as defined by fractional flow reserve in patients with single vessel coronary artery disease?
Cardiogoniometry has poor diagnostic performance at rest and during maximal hyperaemia for detecting physiologically significant coronary stenosis as defined by fractional flow reserve, and does not reach sufficient accuracy for routine clinical use.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cardiogoniometry lacks utility for detecting physiologically significant stenosis; challenges its clinical adoption and supports reliance on established diagnostics.
Cardiogoniometry (CGM) is method of 3-dimensional electrocardiographic assessment which has been shown to identify patients with angiographically defined, stable coronary artery disease (CAD). However, angiographic evidence of CAD, does not always correlate to physiologically significant disease. The aim of our study was to assess the ability of CGM to detect physiologically significant coronary stenosis defined by fractional flow reserve (FFR). In a tertiary cardiology centre, elective patients with single vessel CAD were enrolled into a prospective double blinded observational study. A baseline CGM recording was performed at rest. A second CGM recording was performed during the FFR procedure, at the time of adenosine induced maximal hyperaemia. A significant CGM result was defined as an automatically calculated ischaemia score < 0 and a significant FFR ratio was defined as < 0.80. Measures of diagnostic performance (including sensitivity and specificity) were calculated for CGM at rest and during maximal hyperaemia. Forty-five patients were included (aged 61.1 ± 11.0; 60.0% male), of which eighteen (40%) were found to have significant CAD when assessed by FFR. At rest, CGM yielded a sensitivity of 33.3% and specificity of 63.0%. At maximal hyperaemia the sensitivity and specificity of CGM was 71.4 and 50.0% respectively. The diagnostic performance of CGM to detect physiologically significant stable CAD is poor at rest. Although, the diagnostic performance of CGM improves substantially during maximal hyperaemia, it does not reach sufficient levels of accuracy to be used routinely in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Single vessel coronary artery disease (n=45). Cardiogoniometry vs. Fractional flow reserve was evaluated on Diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity) to detect physiologically significant coronary stenosis defined by FFR ≤ 0.80. Cardiogoniometry demonstrated poor diagnostic accuracy for detecting physiologically significant coronary stenosis at rest (sensitivity 33.3%, specificity 63.0%) and during maximal hyperaemia (sensitivity 71.4%, specificity 50.0%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: