PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
August 1, 2024Radiology22 citations

CT Myocardial Perfusion and CT-FFR versus Invasive FFR for Hemodynamic Relevance of Coronary Artery Disease

View Full Paper
MSMartin SoschynskiRSRoberto StorelliCBClara Birkemeyer

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Background CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) and dynamic CT myocardial perfusion imaging enhance the specificity of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) for ruling out coronary artery disease (CAD). However, evidence on comparative diagnostic value remains scarce. Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA plus CT-FFR, CCTA plus CT perfusion, and sequential CCTA plus CT-FFR and CT perfusion for detecting hemodynamically relevant CAD with that of invasive angiography. Materials and Methods This secondary analysis of a prospective study included patients with chest pain referred for invasive coronary angiography at nine centers from July 2016 to September 2019. CCTA and CT perfusion were performed with third-generation dual-source CT scanners. CT-FFR was assessed on-site. Independent core laboratories analyzed CCTA alone, CCTA plus CT perfusion, CCTA plus CT-FFR, and a sequential approach involving CCTA plus CT-FFR and CT perfusion for the presence of hemodynamically relevant stenosis. Invasive coronary angiography with invasive fractional flow reserve was the reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy metrics and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared with the Sign test and DeLong test. Results Of the 105 participants (mean age, 64 years ± 8 SD; 68 male), 49 (47%) had hemodynamically relevant stenoses at invasive coronary angiography. CCTA plus CT-FFR and CCTA plus CT perfusion showed no evidence of a difference for participant-based sensitivities (90% vs 90%,

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Soschynski et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e5dc57b6db643587572018https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.233234
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Outcomes of Anatomical versus Functional Testing for Coronary Artery Disease2015 · 1,535 citations
  2. 2Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation2018 · 10,905 citations
  3. 3Estimated Radiation Dose Associated With Cardiac CT Angiography2009 · 999 citations
  4. 4Comparing the Areas under Two or More Correlated Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: A Nonparametric Approach1988 · 22,914 citations
  5. 5Prognostic Value of Combined CT Angiography and Myocardial Perfusion Imaging versus Invasive Coronary Angiography and Nuclear Stress Perfusion Imaging in the Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: The CORE320 Multicenter Study2017 · 97 citations