TY - JOUR
T1 - Stress Computed Tomography Perfusion Versus Fractional Flow Reserve CT Derived in Suspected Coronary Artery Disease
T2 - The PERFECTION Study
AU - Pontone, Gianluca
AU - Baggiano, Andrea
AU - Andreini, Daniele
AU - Guaricci, Andrea I.
AU - Guglielmo, Marco
AU - Muscogiuri, Giuseppe
AU - Fusini, Laura
AU - Fazzari, Fabio
AU - Mushtaq, Saima
AU - Conte, Edoardo
AU - Calligaris, Giuseppe
AU - De Martini, Stefano
AU - Ferrari, Cristina
AU - Galli, Stefano
AU - Grancini, Luca
AU - Ravagnani, Paolo
AU - Teruzzi, Giovanni
AU - Trabattoni, Daniela
AU - Fabbiocchi, Franco
AU - Lualdi, Alessandro
AU - Montorsi, Piero
AU - Rabbat, Mark G.
AU - Bartorelli, Antonio L.
AU - Pepi, Mauro
PY - 2018/1/1
Y1 - 2018/1/1
N2 - Objectives: This study sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) with that of cCTA+fractional flow reserve derived from cCTA datasets (FFRCT) and that of cCTA+static stress-computed tomography perfusion (stress-CTP) in detecting functionally significant coronary artery lesions using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) plus invasive FFR as the reference standard. Background: FFRCT and static stress-CTP are new techniques that combine anatomy and functional evaluation to improve assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) using cCTA. Methods: A total of 147 consecutive symptomatic patients scheduled for clinically indicated ICA+invasive FFR were evaluated with cCTA, FFRCT, and stress-CTP. Results: Vessel-based and patient-based sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values, and positive predictive values, and accuracy rates of cCTA were 99%, 76%, 100%, 61%, 82%, and 95%, 54%, 94%, 63%, 73%, respectively. cCTA+FFRCT showed vessel-based and patient-based sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values, and positive predictive values and accuracy rates of 88%, 94%, 95%, 84%, 92%, and 90%, 85%, 92%, 83%, 87%, respectively. Finally, cCTA+stress-CTP showed vessel-based and patient-based sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values, and positive predictive values and accuracy rates of 92%, 95%, 97%, 87%, 94% and 98%, 87%, 99%, 86%, 92%, respectively. Both FFRCT and stress-CTP significantly improved specificity and positive predictive values compared to those of cCTA alone. The area under the curve to detect flow-limiting stenoses of cCTA, cCTA+FFRCT, and cCTA+CTP were 0.89, 0.93, 0.92, and 0.90, 0.94, and 0.93 in a vessel-based and patient-based model, respectively, with significant additional values for both cCTA+FFRCT and cCTA+CTP versus cCTA alone (p < 0.001) but no differences between cCTA+FFRCT versus cCTA+CTP. Conclusions: FFRCT and stress-CTP in addition to cCTA are valid and comparable tools to evaluate the functional relevance of CAD.
AB - Objectives: This study sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) with that of cCTA+fractional flow reserve derived from cCTA datasets (FFRCT) and that of cCTA+static stress-computed tomography perfusion (stress-CTP) in detecting functionally significant coronary artery lesions using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) plus invasive FFR as the reference standard. Background: FFRCT and static stress-CTP are new techniques that combine anatomy and functional evaluation to improve assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) using cCTA. Methods: A total of 147 consecutive symptomatic patients scheduled for clinically indicated ICA+invasive FFR were evaluated with cCTA, FFRCT, and stress-CTP. Results: Vessel-based and patient-based sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values, and positive predictive values, and accuracy rates of cCTA were 99%, 76%, 100%, 61%, 82%, and 95%, 54%, 94%, 63%, 73%, respectively. cCTA+FFRCT showed vessel-based and patient-based sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values, and positive predictive values and accuracy rates of 88%, 94%, 95%, 84%, 92%, and 90%, 85%, 92%, 83%, 87%, respectively. Finally, cCTA+stress-CTP showed vessel-based and patient-based sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values, and positive predictive values and accuracy rates of 92%, 95%, 97%, 87%, 94% and 98%, 87%, 99%, 86%, 92%, respectively. Both FFRCT and stress-CTP significantly improved specificity and positive predictive values compared to those of cCTA alone. The area under the curve to detect flow-limiting stenoses of cCTA, cCTA+FFRCT, and cCTA+CTP were 0.89, 0.93, 0.92, and 0.90, 0.94, and 0.93 in a vessel-based and patient-based model, respectively, with significant additional values for both cCTA+FFRCT and cCTA+CTP versus cCTA alone (p < 0.001) but no differences between cCTA+FFRCT versus cCTA+CTP. Conclusions: FFRCT and stress-CTP in addition to cCTA are valid and comparable tools to evaluate the functional relevance of CAD.
KW - accuracy
KW - computed tomography
KW - coronary artery disease
KW - fractional flow reserve
KW - perfusion
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055095240&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85055095240&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.08.023
DO - 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.08.023
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85055095240
JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
SN - 1936-878X
ER -