Ma Y, Hou Y, Qiao A, Jing Q, Liu H, Yang Q, Guo Q, Yang B
Department of Radiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110004, China.
Department of Radiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110004, China.
Clin Radiol. 2018 Nov;73(11):983.e15-983.e22. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.07.098. Epub 2018 Aug 6.
To determine the diagnostic performance of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) derived from non-invasive coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA; iFR) for ischaemia-causing coronary stenosis, and to compare the diagnostic efficacy of iFR, CTA, and CTA plus iFR.
Thirty-nine patients (55 vessels) with known or suspected coronary artery disease were included. All patients underwent invasive coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve (FFR) according to CTA findings and clinical indicators. The same raw data used for CTA were used to build patient-specific computed flow dynamic models and to calculate iFR.
On a vessel-based level, the correlation between iFR and FFR was moderate (r=0.65, p<0.05); the optimal iFR cut-off value was 0.85 based on an FFR cut-off value of 0.80, resulting in 85% sensitivity, 69% specificity, 61% positive predictive value (PPV), 89% negative predictive value (NPV), and 75% accuracy. The AUC showed significant differences between iFR and CTA (vessel-based: 0.84 versus 0.68; patient-based: 0.84 versus 0.62; both p<0.01). The accuracy of CTA combined with iFR was significantly increased compared to CTA alone for vessels with intermediate stenosis (83% versus 40%, p<0.01).
iFR showed better diagnostic performance than CTA. iFR may be a promising method for detection of ischaemia-causing coronary stenosis, even in vessels with intermediate stenosis.
确定从无创冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影(CTA;iFR)得出的瞬时无波比值(iFR)对导致缺血的冠状动脉狭窄的诊断性能,并比较iFR、CTA和CTA加iFR的诊断效能。
纳入39例已知或疑似冠心病患者(55支血管)。所有患者均根据CTA结果和临床指标接受了有创冠状动脉造影和血流储备分数(FFR)检查。用于CTA的相同原始数据被用于构建患者特异性计算流体动力学模型并计算iFR。
在基于血管的水平上,iFR与FFR之间的相关性为中等(r=0.65,p<0.05);基于FFR临界值0.80,iFR的最佳临界值为0.85,灵敏度为85%,特异性为69%,阳性预测值(PPV)为61%,阴性预测值(NPV)为89%,准确性为75%。iFR与CTA之间的曲线下面积(AUC)显示出显著差异(基于血管:0.84对0.68;基于患者:0.84对0.62;均p<0.01)。对于中度狭窄的血管,CTA联合iFR的准确性比单独使用CTA显著提高(83%对40%,p<0.01)。
iFR显示出比CTA更好的诊断性能。iFR可能是一种有前景的检测导致缺血的冠状动脉狭窄的方法,即使在中度狭窄的血管中也是如此。