Suppr超能文献

在真实世界人群中,计算机断层扫描冠状动脉造影与计算机断层扫描血流储备分数的阳性预测值

Positive Predictive Value of Computerized Tomography Coronary Angiography versus Computerized Tomography Fractional Flow Reserve in a Real-world Population.

作者信息

Sinclair Hannah, Yongli Reuben Loi, Farag Mohamed, Alkhalil Mohammad, Beattie Anna, Egred Mohaned

机构信息

Cardiothoracic Department, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Gateshead, UK.

Cardiac Department, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead NHS Foundation Trust, Gateshead, UK.

出版信息

Heart Views. 2024 Jan-Mar;25(1):2-8. doi: 10.4103/heartviews.heartviews_82_23. Epub 2024 Apr 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Computed Tomography coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve (CTCA and CT-FFR) are noninvasive diagnostic tools for the detection of flow-limiting coronary artery stenoses. Although their negative predictive values are well established, there is a concern that the high sensitivity of these tests may lead to overestimation of coronary artery disease (CAD) and unnecessary invasive coronary angiography (ICA). We compared the positive predictive value (PPV) of CT-FFR with computerized tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) against the gold standard of ICA in different real-world patient groups.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 477 patients referred for CTCA or CT-FFR for investigation of possible coronary ischemia. Patients were excluded if the image quality was poor or inconclusive. Patient-based PPV was calculated to detect or rule out significant CAD, defined as more than 70% stenosis on ICA. A sub-analysis of PPV by indication for the scan was also performed. Patients who underwent invasive nonhyperemic pressure wire measurements had their instant wave-free ratio or resting full-cycle ratio compared with their CT-FFR values.

RESULTS

In a patient-based analysis, the overall PPV was 59.3% for CTCA and 76.2% for CT-FFR. This increased to 81.0% and 86.7%, respectively, for patients with stable angina symptoms. In patients with atypical angina symptoms, CT-FFR considerably outperformed CTCA with a PPV of 61.3% vs. 37.5%. There was not a linear relationship between invasive pressure wire measurement and CT-FFR value ( = 0.23, = 0.265).

CONCLUSION

The PPV of CTCA and CT-FFR is lower in the real world than in previously published trials, partly due to the heterogeneity of indication for the scan. However, in patients with typical angina symptoms, both are reliable diagnostic tools to determine the presence of clinically significant coronary stenoses. CT-FFR significantly outperforms CTCA in patients with more atypical symptoms and the targeted use of CT-FFR in this group may help to avoid unnecessary invasive procedures.

摘要

背景

计算机断层扫描冠状动脉造影和血流储备分数(CTCA和CT-FFR)是用于检测限流性冠状动脉狭窄的无创诊断工具。尽管它们的阴性预测值已得到充分证实,但人们担心这些检查的高敏感性可能导致对冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的高估以及不必要的有创冠状动脉造影(ICA)。我们在不同的真实世界患者群体中,将CT-FFR与计算机断层扫描冠状动脉造影(CTCA)的阳性预测值(PPV)与ICA的金标准进行了比较。

方法

对477例因可能的冠状动脉缺血而接受CTCA或CT-FFR检查的患者进行回顾性分析。如果图像质量差或不确定,则将患者排除。计算基于患者的PPV以检测或排除显著CAD,定义为ICA上狭窄超过70%。还对扫描指征的PPV进行了亚分析。接受有创非充血压力导丝测量的患者将其瞬时无波比值或静息全周期比值与其CT-FFR值进行比较。

结果

在基于患者的分析中,CTCA的总体PPV为59.3%,CT-FFR为76.2%。对于有稳定型心绞痛症状的患者,这一比例分别增至81.0%和86.7%。在有非典型心绞痛症状的患者中,CT-FFR的表现明显优于CTCA,PPV分别为61.3%和37.5%。有创压力导丝测量与CT-FFR值之间不存在线性关系( = 0.23, = 0.265)。

结论

在现实世界中,CTCA和CT-FFR的PPV低于先前发表的试验,部分原因是扫描指征的异质性。然而,对于有典型心绞痛症状的患者,两者都是确定临床上显著冠状动脉狭窄存在的可靠诊断工具。在有更多非典型症状的患者中,CT-FFR的表现明显优于CTCA,在该组中针对性地使用CT-FFR可能有助于避免不必要的有创检查。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fd70/11104541/0df2d7566147/HV-25-2-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验