Key result
Myocardial blood flow index (MBFI) demonstrated a significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (92.65% vs 72.06%, p=0.0017) than CCTA for identifying coronary lesions with ≥70% stenosis.
Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate the advantages of the myocardial blood flow index in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive CAD, leveraging the relationship between coronary stenosis and downstream myocardial remodeling.
Does the myocardial blood flow index (MBFI) improve diagnostic accuracy for detecting chronic obstructive coronary artery disease compared to coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in patients with suspected CAD?
Observational (n=68)
Does the myocardial blood flow index (MBFI) improve diagnostic accuracy for detecting chronic obstructive coronary artery disease compared to coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in patients with suspected CAD?
Absolute Event Rate: 92.65% vs 72.06%
p-value: p=0.0017
The myocardial blood flow index (MBFI) derived from CCTA and physiological parameters significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy for detecting severe coronary stenosis (≥70%) compared to CCTA alone.
MBFI may aid obstructive CAD detection; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Background: There is a hidden relationship between the degree of coronary artery stenosis and downstream myocardial remodeling. The mutual influence in myocardial ischemia and myocardial remodeling provides an index for quantifying the myocardial blood flow based on the principles of physics. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the advantages of myocardial blood flow index (MBFI) in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients and Methods: The data of 68 patients (39 males; mean age: 57.0 ± 10.20 years) with suspected CAD were analyzed retrospectively, including the imaging findings of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) within one week. The MBFI was also calculated for the patients. After determining the optimal cut-off value based on ICA (stenosis ≥ 70%) as the gold standard test, the diagnostic performance of MBFI and CCTA was compared. The diagnostic accuracy was examined by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. For statistical analysis, chi-square test was performed to analyze influence data, and a P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In 68 cases evaluated in this study, the average scan dose of CCTA was 3.02 ± 1.15 millisievert (mSv). There were 28 cases with stenosis ≥ 70%. The optimal cutoff value of MBFI and CCTA was 0.111 and 70%, respectively. Also, the area under the curve (AUC) for MBFI and CCTA was 0.857 and 0.621 (Z = 2.091, P = 0.0365), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 92.31%, 92.86%, 88.89%, and 95.12% for MBFI and 61.54%, 78.57%, 64.00%, and 76.74% for CCTA, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy was also estimated at 92.65% for MBFI and 72.06% for CCTA (χ2 = 9.844, P = 0.0017). Conclusion: In this study, MBFI performed better than CCTA in identifying lesions with stenosis ≥ 70%. A lower MBFI indicated the need for an upcoming active intervention, while a higher MBFI suggested avoiding unnecessary invasive testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qingfeng et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Chronic obstructive coronary artery disease (n=68). Myocardial blood flow index (MBFI) vs. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy for identifying coronary lesions with ≥ 70% stenosis (p=0.0017). Myocardial blood flow index (MBFI) demonstrated a significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (92.65% vs 72.06%, p=0.0017) than CCTA for identifying coronary lesions with ≥70% stenosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: