Tesche Christian, De Cecco Carlo N, Caruso Damiano, Baumann Stefan, Renker Matthias, Mangold Stefanie, Dyer Kevin T, Varga-Szemes Akos, Baquet Moritz, Jochheim David, Ebersberger Ullrich, Bayer Richard R, Hoffmann Ellen, Steinberg Daniel H, Schoepf U Joseph
Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Department of Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Heart Center Munich-Bogenhausen, Munich, Germany.
Division of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, University of Rome "Sapienza", Rome, Italy.
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016 May-Jun;10(3):199-206. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2016.03.002. Epub 2016 Mar 10.
Compare morphological and functional coronary plaque markers derived from coronary CT angiography (CCTA) for their ability to detect lesion-specific ischemia.
Data of patients who had undergone both dual-source CCTA and invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement within 3 months were retrospectively analyzed. Various quantitative stenosis markers were derived from CCTA: Corrected coronary opacification (CCO), transluminal attenuation gradient (TAG), remodeling index (RI), computational FFR (cFFR), lesion length (LL), vessel volume (VV), total plaque volume (TPV), and calcified and non-calcified plaque volume (CPV and NCPV). Discriminatory power of these markers for flow-limiting versus non-significant coronary stenosis was assessed against invasive FFR as the reference standard.
The cohort included 37 patients (61 ± 12 years, 68% male). Among 37 lesions, 11 were hemodynamically significant by FFR. On a per-lesion level, sensitivity and specificity of TPV, CPV, and NCPV for hemodynamically significant stenosis detection were 88% and 74%, 67% and 53%, and 92% and 81%, respectively. For CCO, TAG, RI, and cFFR these were 64% and 86%, 35% and 56%, 82% and 54%, and 100% and 90%, respectively. At ROC analysis, only TPV (0.78, p = 0.013), NCPV (0.79, p = 0.009), cFFR (0.85, p = 0.003), and CCO (0.82, p = 0.0003) showed discriminatory power for detecting hemodynamically significant stenosis.
TPV, NCPV, CCO, and cFFR derived from CCTA can aid detecting hemodynamically significant coronary lesions with cFFR showing the greatest discriminatory ability.
比较冠状动脉CT血管造影(CCTA)得出的形态学和功能性冠状动脉斑块标志物检测病变特异性缺血的能力。
回顾性分析在3个月内同时接受双源CCTA和有创血流储备分数(FFR)测量的患者数据。从CCTA得出各种定量狭窄标志物:校正冠状动脉造影剂充盈(CCO)、腔内衰减梯度(TAG)、重构指数(RI)、计算血流储备分数(cFFR)、病变长度(LL)、血管容积(VV)、总斑块容积(TPV)以及钙化和非钙化斑块容积(CPV和NCPV)。以有创FFR作为参考标准,评估这些标志物对血流限制性与非显著性冠状动脉狭窄的鉴别能力。
该队列包括37例患者(61±12岁,68%为男性)。在37处病变中,11处经FFR检测为血流动力学显著病变。在每处病变水平上,TPV、CPV和NCPV检测血流动力学显著狭窄的敏感性和特异性分别为88%和74%、67%和53%、92%和81%。对于CCO、TAG、RI和cFFR,这些数值分别为64%和86%、35%和56%、82%和54%、100%和90%。在ROC分析中,只有TPV(0.78,p = 0.013)、NCPV(0.79,p = 0.009)、cFFR(0.85,p = 0.003)和CCO(0.82,p = 0.0003)显示出检测血流动力学显著狭窄的鉴别能力。
CCTA得出的TPV、NCPV、CCO和cFFR有助于检测血流动力学显著的冠状动脉病变,其中cFFR的鉴别能力最强。