CLINICAL RESEARCH: CARDIAC IMAGING
Comprehensive Assessment of Coronary Artery StenosesComputed Tomography Coronary Angiography Versus Conventional Coronary Angiography and Correlation With Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina
W. Bob Meijboom, MD*, ,
Carlos A.G. Van Mieghem, MD*,,
Niels van Pelt, MD*,,
Annick Weustink, MD*,,
Francesca Pugliese, MD*,,
Nico R. Mollet, MD, PhD*,,
Eric Boersma, PhD*,
Eveline Regar, MD, PhD*,
Robert J. van Geuns, MD, PhD*,,
Peter J. de Jaegere, MD, PhD*,
Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD, FACC*,
Gabriel P. Krestin, MD, PhD and
Pim J. de Feyter, MD, PhD, FACC*,,*
* Department of Cardiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Department of Radiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Manuscript received October 18, 2007;
revised manuscript received April 28, 2008,
accepted May 6, 2008.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Pim J. de Feyter, Erasmus MC, Department of Cardiology and Radiology, Room Hs 227, ‘s Gravendijkwal 230, P.O. Box 2040, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. (Email: p.j.defeyter{at}erasmusmc.nl).
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Objectives: We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive visual (computed tomography coronary angiography [CTCA]) and quantitative computed tomography coronary angiography (QCT) to predict the hemodynamic significance of a coronary stenosis, using intracoronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard.
Background: It has been demonstrated that CTCA provides excellent diagnostic sensitivity for identifying coronary stenoses, but may lack accurate delineation of the hemodynamic significance.
Methods: We investigated 79 patients with stable angina pectoris who underwent both 64-slice or dual-source CTCA and FFR measurement of discrete coronary stenoses. CTCA and conventional coronary angiography (CCA), and QCT and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), were performed to determine the severity of a stenosis that was compared with FFR measurements. A significant anatomical or functional stenosis was defined as  50% diameter stenosis or an FFR <0.75. Stented segments and bypass grafts were not included in the analysis.
Results: A total of 89 stenoses were evaluated of which 18% (16 of 89) had an FFR <0.75. The diagnostic accuracy of CTCA, QCT, CCA, and QCA to detect a hemodynamically significant coronary lesion was 49%, 71%, 61%, and 67%, respectively. Correlation between QCT and QCA with FFR measurement was weak (R values of –0.32 and –0.30, respectively). Correlation between QCT and QCA was significant, but only moderate (R = 0.53; p < 0.0001).
Conclusions: The anatomical assessment of the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses determined by visual CTCA, CCA, or QCT or QCA does not correlate well with the functional assessment of FFR. Determining the hemodynamic significance of an angiographically intermediate stenosis remains relevant before referral for revascularization treatment.
Key Words: coronary artery disease • computed tomography • coronary angiography • fractional flow reserve • quantification
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | CAD = coronary artery disease | | CCA = conventional coronary angiogram | | CT = computed tomography | | CTCA = computed tomography coronary angiogram | | FFR = fractional flow reserve | | QCA = quantitative coronary angiography | | QCT = quantitative computed tomography coronary angiography |
|
Currently available 64-slice cardiac computed tomography (CT) scanners and recently introduced dual-source scanners have the ability to completely assess the entire coronary tree and have been demonstrated to have good diagnostic accuracy for the identification of anatomically important coronary artery disease (CAD), generally defined as coronary artery stenoses with a lumen diameter reduction of at least 50% (1–11). However, the anatomically significant appearance of a coronary stenosis does not always equate with functional significance, and this is particularly true for intermediate type coronary lesions (12–16). According to the guidelines (European Society of Cardiology, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association), the decision to perform angioplasty or bypass surgery should integrate anatomical information with a test that provides objective proof of ischemia (17,18).
Only few reports have studied the relationship between the significance of a stenosis in a coronary vessel as defined by computed tomography coronary angiogram (CTCA) and the functional importance of this stenosis in that particular coronary vessel territory (19–22). This study evaluates the relationship between the anatomy and functional significance of a coronary stenosis in patients who underwent both CTCA and conventional coronary angiogram (CCA) using the lesion-specific intracoronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement.
|
Methods
|
|---|
Study population.
We retrospectively analyzed all patients who, in the period between July 2004 and March 2007, underwent both a cardiac CT scan and invasive CCA and a subsequent measurement of the FFR. The decision to measure FFR was based entirely on the appearance of a coronary narrowing on CCA and was performed at the interventional cardiologist's discretion. All patients were assessed by either a 64-slice CT scanner (period July 2004 to March 2006) or dual-source CT scanner (period April 2006 to March 2007). Contraindications for a CT scan included impaired renal function (creatinine clearance <60 ml/min as defined with the Cockroft formula), irregular heart rhythm, and known contrast allergy. Patients with previous percutaneous coronary intervention using stents or coronary artery bypass surgery were excluded from further analysis. Due to the hemodynamic interaction between 2 or more stenoses in series (23,24), we only included patients in whom FFR of a single discrete lesion had been performed. In total, 89 segments in 79 patients were included in the study. Sixteen segments were excluded due to CTCA-related artefacts and 1 because of inability to obtain a good angiographic view to perform quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).
For this retrospective analysis, all patients gave their informed consent to undergo CTCA as part of research protocols approved by the institutional review board. FFR was carried out as part of routine clinical management.
CCA.
All patients underwent CCA through the femoral approach, using a 6- or 7-F guiding catheter. After intracoronary injection of 2 mg isosorbide dinitrate, an angiogram of the right and left coronary artery was performed in multiple projections using standard techniques. All angiograms were analyzed off-line by 2 cardiologists who were not involved in the patient's medical care. They independently analyzed the selected coronary artery stenosis where FFR had been informed using visual estimation and quantitative assessment, the latter using an automated edge contour detection system (Cardiovascular Angiographic Analysis System, Pie Medical Equipment, Maastricht, the Netherlands) (25). Qualitative and quantitative analysis was based on the angiographic projection showing the most severe narrowing. A coronary stenosis was defined as significant based on visual inspection or when the degree of stenosis as measured with QCA was 50%.
FFR measurement.
Fractional flow reserve was measured with a sensor-tipped 0.014-inch guidewire (Pressure Wire, Radi Medical Systems, Uppsala, Sweden). After positioning of the pressure sensor just distal to the stenosis, maximal myocardial hyperemia was induced by a continuous intravenous infusion of adenosine in a femoral vein at an infusion rate of 140 µg/kg body weight per minute for a minimum of 2 min. During maximum hyperemia, FFR was calculated as the ratio of mean distal pressure measured by the pressure wire divided by the mean proximal pressure measured by the guiding catheter (26). A coronary stenosis with an FFR value <0.75 was considered functionally significant (27–29).
CTCA.
Patient Preparation
Patients scanned with the 64-slice scanner who had a heart rate exceeding 65 beats/min received additional oral and/or intravenous beta-blockers (metoprolol) before the CT scan in order to obtain a heart rate below 65 beats/min. Patients scanned with dual-source CT did not receive pre-medication irrespective of the heart rate.
Scan Protocol
Thirty-eight patients were scanned with a 64-slice CT scanner (Sensation 64, Siemens, Forchheim, Germany). Angiographic scan parameters were: 32 x 2 x 0.6 mm collimation with z-flying focal spot, 330 ms rotation time, temporal resolution 165 ms, 120 kV tube voltage, 900 mAs tube current, and 3.8 mm/rotation table feed. Prospective X-ray tube modulation was not applied.
Forty patients were scanned using a dual-source CT scanner (Somatom Definition, Siemens, Forcheim, Germany). Dual-source CT angiographic scan parameters were: 120 kV, 330 ms rotation time, temporal resolution 83 ms, and 32 x 2 x 0.6 mm collimation with z-flying focal spot for both detectors. Pitch values were adapted to heart rate based on the average of the last 10 heart beats preceding the scan. Each tube provided 412 mAs/rot. Prospective tube modulation was applied with full dose radiation only given during 25% to 70% of the RR-interval.
With the 64-slice scanner, a bolus of 100 ml of contrast material (400 mgl/ml; Iomeron, Bracco, Milan, Italy) was injected intravenously in an antecubital vein at 5 ml/s. With dual-source CT, the volume of iodinated contrast material (Ultravist 370 mgl/ml, Schering AG, Germany) was adapted to the scan time, which varied between 5 and 13 s. A bolus of contrast material (60 to 90 ml) was injected in an antecubital vein at a flow rate of 5 ml/s followed by a saline chaser of 40 ml at 5 ml/s. In both scanners a bolus-tracking technique was used to synchronize the arrival of contrast in the coronary arteries, and the scan was started once the contrast material in the ascending aorta reached a pre-defined threshold of +100 Hounsfield units.
Image Reconstruction
Images were reconstructed with electrocardiogram gating to obtain near motion-free image quality. Optimal datasets were reconstructed in the mid- to end-diastolic phase and in the end-systolic phase.
Qualitative Evaluation of the CTCA
Two experienced observers unaware of the results of CCA evaluated the CTCA datasets on an offline workstation (Leonardo, Siemens, Forchheim, Germany). Initially, the specific lesion was evaluated with axial slices for the presence of significant disease, and additionally (curved) multiplanar reformatted reconstructions were used.
Quantitative Evaluation of the CTCA
Two experienced observers performed the quantification manually. After positioning the planes orthogonally to the course of the coronaries, cross-sectional images were obtained in the most severe narrowing and in the proximal and distal reference site. In these 3 images, the minimal lumen diameter was measured. The reference diameter was calculated by averaging the proximal and distal minimal lumen diameters. The percent diameter stenosis was calculated by subtracting the reference diameter from the minimal lumen diameter, which was divided by the reference diameter. The average of both measurements by the 2 observers was reported. A 50% diameter stenosis measured with quantitative computed tomography coronary angiography (QCT) was described as significant.
Statistical analysis.
The diagnostic performance of qualitative and quantitative CCA and CTCA for the detection of significant stenoses in the coronary arteries with FFR as the standard of reference is presented as sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (true positives + true negatives/true positives + true negatives + false positives + false negatives), with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The relation between anatomical (QCA and QCT) and functional parameters (FFR) were analyzed with correlation statistics. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used because QCA, QCT, and FFR were normally distributed. Bland-Altman analysis was performed by plotting the difference of QCA and QCT versus QCA (30). Interobserver variability for the detection of significant coronary stenosis and agreement between techniques to classify segments as having a functionally significant lesion was determined by  -statistics.
|
Results
|
|---|
Patients' characteristics and angiographic data are shown in Table 1. A total of 17 segments were excluded due to the presence of heavy calcifications (11 segments), motion artifacts (2 segments), breathing artifacts (2 segments), low contrast opacification (1 segment), and absence of a good angiographic view to perform QCA (1 segment). Average heart rate during CT data acquisition was 60 ± 9 beats/min for 64-slice CT and 68 ± 11 beats/min for dual-source CT.
Overall, 89 discrete stenoses in 79 patients were included for comparison with FFR. Seventy-one percent (63 of 89) of these stenoses were of angiographic intermediate severity (between 40% and 70% diameter stenosis as determined by QCA), 29 stenoses were less than 40%, and 1 stenosis was measured as more than 70%. Of these 89 coronary stenoses, 35 had a diameter stenosis of more than 50% by QCA, but only 16 lesions were hemodynamically significant (FFR <0.75). Patient management is shown in Table 2.
Diagnostic performance of CTCA and CCA versus FFR: visual assessment.
The diagnostic performance of CTCA and CCA for the assessment of a functionally important coronary stenosis (FFR <0.75) is detailed in Table 3
and Figure 1. Agreement between visual CT and FFR assessment was present in 49% (44 of 89) of the evaluated segments; 15 of the 16 hemodynamically significant stenoses were identified correctly. One functionally important lesion in the midleft anterior descending coronary artery was underestimated and classified as nonsignificant by CTCA (44% diameter stenosis by QCA) (Fig. 2). Overestimation of hemodynamic severity occurred in 44 cases (Fig. 3). Corresponding sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 94% and 40%. Interobserver variability for detection of a functionally important coronary stenosis was good (kappa value of 0.76). Agreement between CTCA and FFR was poor (kappa value of 0.16).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 3 Diagnostic Performance of CCA and CTCA to Detect a Functionally Significant Coronary Stenosis (FFR <0.75, FFR <0.80)
|
|
View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 1 Scatter Plots of FFR Versus QCA, QCT, CCA, and CTCA
Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), quantitative computed tomography coronary angiography (QCT), CCA, and CTCA are plotted versus FFR. There was a weak, but significant, negative correlation between QCA and FFR (r = –0.30) and between QCT and FFR (r = –0.32). Coronary arteries smaller than 3.5 mm are depicted as solid circles, coronary arteries larger than 3.5 mm as open circles. Abbreviations as in Figure 1.
|
|
View larger version (78K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 2 CTCA and CCA With FFR Measurement of Intermediate Coronary Lesion
Patient showing a coronary artery stenosis (arrow) in the left anterior descending coronary artery, as visualized with computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) (A, volume-rendered image; B and C, 2 orthogonal curved multiplanar reconstructions) and conventional coronary angiography (CCA) (D). By visual assessment, the coronary lesion was estimated as less than 50% diameter stenosis, both by CTCA and CCA. By quantitative analysis, the diameter stenosis was measured as 44% by quantitative coronary angiography and 40% by quantitative CTCA. The fractional flow reserve (FFR) was 0.71 (E). Based on the functional assessment, the patient underwent a successful percutaneous coronary intervention for this anatomically intermediate stenosis.
|
|
View larger version (92K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 3 CTCA and CCA With FFR Measurement of Intermediate Coronary Lesion
Patient with a coronary artery stenosis (arrow) in the proximal part of the right coronary artery, as visualized with CTCA (A, volume-rendered image; B and C, 2 orthogonal curved multiplanar reconstructions) and CCA (D). Visually, the diameter stenosis was estimated as more than 50%, both by CTCA and CCA. Also, after quantification (56% diameter stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography, 70% diameter stenosis by quantitative CTCA), the lesion appeared to be anatomically significant. The FFR was 0.78 (E). In the distal segments, a step artefact can be seen (A and C, arrowhead). Abbreviations as in Figure 1.
|
|
By comparison, visual lesion assessment by CCA showed an agreement with FFR in 61% (54 of 89) of the segments. Visual scoring identified 10 of the 16 functionally important lesions and 44 of the 73 functionally insignificant lesions. Six functionally important lesions were underestimated (Fig. 2). In 29 lesions, the hemodynamic severity was overestimated (Fig. 3). Consequently, the sensitivity was 63% and the specificity 60% for CCA to detect a functionally significant lesion. Interobserver variability for the detection of a functionally important coronary stenosis was moderate (kappa value of 0.61). Agreement between CCA and FFR was poor (kappa value of 0.15). Furthermore, the diagnostic performance of CTCA and CCA for the assessment of a functionally important coronary stenosis, defined as an FFR <0.80, is detailed in Table 3 and Figure 1.
Diagnostic performance of QCT and QCA versus FFR: quantitative assessment.
The diagnostic accuracy of QCT and QCA for detecting functionally relevant coronary stenoses is described in Table 3 and Figure 1. Overall, the diagnostic accuracy for both quantitative measures was slightly better than when performed with visual estimation.
Agreement between QCA and FFR as well as between QCT and FFR (Table 3) was only fair (kappa value of 0.25 and 0.20, respectively). The interobserver variability for QCA (kappa value of 0.58) and QCT (kappa value of 0.69) was moderate.
The correlation between QCT and FFR was R = –0.32 and between QCA and FFR was R = –0.30. Correlation of the percent diameter stenosis as determined by QCT and QCA was significant, but only moderate (R = 0.53; p < 0.0001) (Fig. 4). The Bland-Altman analysis plot revealed important variability: the mean difference between QCA and QCT was +2% with 95% limits of agreement ranging from –21% to +25% (Fig. 4).
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 4 Scatter Plot and Bland-Altman Analysis of QCT Versus QCA
In the left panel, QCT is plotted versus QCA. A significant correlation is seen between both anatomical techniques (r = 0.53). In the right panel, Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of +2% with 95% limit of agreement ranging from –21% to 25%. Abbreviations as in Figure 3.
|
|
|
Discussion
|
|---|
Fractional flow reserve is a lesion-specific technique to determine the functional importance of a coronary stenosis and is correlated with noninvasive tests that demonstrate ischemia (27,31–34). It has been shown to be a useful guide for decision making regarding the revascularization of a specific lesion. In lesions where the FFR is 0.75, revascularization can be safely deferred (35–37).
Limitations of anatomical imaging.
Previous reports have demonstrated that the anatomical assessment of a coronary stenosis as determined by CCA correlates poorly with the hemodynamic significance of the stenosis, in particular in intermediate severity lesions (12–16). Although QCA is accurate and reproducible, it does not reflect the hemodynamic impairment of coronary flow. The QCA does not account for the effects of factors such as collateral circulation, mass of viable myocardium, shape and length of stenosis, inflow and outflow configuration, and transient vasoconstriction with resulting dynamic changes in the diameter of a stenosis (38). The diffuseness of the atherosclerotic process often results in disease in the reference segments proximal and distal to the site of maximal diameter reduction and as a result leads to underestimation of extent and severity of coronary atherosclerosis (39).
Integrating anatomy with functional information.
These findings were also demonstrated in this study, not only for CTCA, but also when assessing the severity of a coronary artery stenosis with CCA. Using visual assessment, CTCA had high sensitivity to detect lesions with functional significance (FFR <0.75). However, it had poor specificity due to frequent false positives; CTCA overestimated the functional severity of a coronary stenosis, even when excluding segments with extensive calcifications or coronary motion. Quantification of stenosis severity by QCT and QCA improved the prediction of a functionally relevant coronary stenosis slightly.
Previous studies have compared the anatomical findings of CTCA with functional imaging using nuclear stress testing (19,20,22). These studies also showed a poor correlation between anatomy and function with only  50% of patients with significant coronary stenosis as demonstrated by CTCA having ischemia demonstrated by nuclear stress testing. Besides methodological limitations, these noninvasive tests measure the effect of impaired coronary perfusion at the level of the myocardium and thus do not discriminate between epicardial flow impairment and microvascular perfusion abnormalities. Intracoronary measurement of the FFR has the disadvantage of being invasive, but has the benefit of determining the ischemic potential of a specific epicardial coronary stenosis.
Clinical implementation.
Given the previously discussed findings, and the consistently high negative predictive value of CTCA in different population groups, CTCA appears best suited as an effective rule-out test for significant CAD. Those patients with suspected CAD and no or minimal coronary atherosclerosis on CTCA would not need further investigation (40,41). However, patients with obstructive CAD on CTCA may best be investigated using a combined approach with a subsequent functional test such as nuclear stress testing, stress echocardiography, or magnetic resonance perfusion imaging.
Anatomical evaluation of CAD has limitations and makes functional assessment necessary. Comprehensive noninvasive anatomical and functional imaging may best identify patients who are likely to benefit most from secondary preventive measures and medical therapy (coronary atherosclerosis without ischemia) or who may be candidates for coronary revascularization (coronary atherosclerosis with ischemia). All-in-one approaches, such as single-photon emission CT-CTCA or positron emission tomography-CTCA, that provide integrated evaluation of anatomy and physiology in a noninvasive way might theoretically solve these diagnostic problems.
Now that we are able to noninvasively access coronary anatomy, we should be mindful of the limitations of noninvasive functional tests, especially in patients with multivessel disease or significant left main stenosis on CTCA, without evidence of ischemia of a noninvasive functional test (42,43). In case of doubt, it seems prudent to refer such a patient to the catheterization laboratory for further invasive assessment and definitive exclusion of the functional severity of a specific epicardial stenosis using FFR.
Study limitations.
Patient inclusion was not performed in a prospectively designed study, but as a retrospective analysis. Consecutive patients were enrolled based on the access to the 64-slice or dual-source CT scanner. Seventeen segments in 15 patients had to be excluded due to the presence of heavy calcifications, motion artifacts, breathing artifacts, low contrast opacification, and absence of a good angiographic view that made it, both visually as well as quantitatively, impossible to reliably estimate stenoses severity.
Quantification of coronary artery stenoses with CTCA continues to be a challenge due to the difficulty in ascertaining the normal reference segment of the coronary artery because of atherosclerotic involvement of the vessel wall proximal and distal to the stenosis (2,3,44). Especially in the presence of extensive calcifications of the artery, it becomes impossible to accurately define the reference vessel diameters. Further improvement in spatial resolution will enhance the ability to accurately grade stenosis severity. However, particularly in coronary stenoses of intermediate severity, this may not improve the ability to predict functional significance, as is also observed with invasive CCA.
|
Conclusions
|
|---|
The correlation between stenosis severity as determined by CTCA or CCA and ischemia measured by FFR in coronary lesions of intermediate severity is poor. Functional information, whether provided by FFR or a noninvasive stress test, is essential in these circumstances for appropriate clinical decision making.
|
References
|
|---|
1. Leschka S, Alkadhi H, Plass A, et al. Accuracy of MSCT coronary angiography with 64-slice technology: first experience Eur Heart J 2005;26:1482-1487.[Abstract/Free Full Text]2. Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O'Neill WW, Goldstein JA. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:552-557.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 3. Leber AW, Knez A, von Ziegler F, et al. Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:147-154.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 4. Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem CA, et al. High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography Circulation 2005;112:2318-2323.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 5. Ropers D, Rixe J, Anders K, et al. Usefulness of multidetector row spiral computed tomography with 64- x 0.6-mm collimation and 330-ms rotation for the noninvasive detection of significant coronary artery stenoses Am J Cardiol 2006;97:343-348.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 6. Schuijf JD, Pundziute G, Jukema JW, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice multislice computed tomography in the noninvasive evaluation of significant coronary artery disease Am J Cardiol 2006;98:145-148.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 7. Nikolaou K, Knez A, Rist C, et al. Accuracy of 64-MDCT in the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:111-117.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 8. Fine JJ, Hopkins CB, Ruff N, Newton FC. Comparison of accuracy of 64-slice cardiovascular computed tomography with coronary angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease Am J Cardiol 2006;97:173-174.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 9. Ehara M, Surmely JF, Kawai M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography for detecting angiographically significant coronary artery stenosis in an unselected consecutive patient population: comparison with conventional invasive angiography Circ J 2006;70:564-571.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 10. Leber AW, Johnson T, Becker A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dual-source multi-slice CT-coronary angiography in patients with an intermediate pretest likelihood for coronary artery disease Eur Heart J 2007;28:2354-2360.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 11. Weustink AC, Meijboom WB, Mollet NR, et al. Reliable high-speed coronary computed tomography in symptomatic patients J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:786-794.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 12. White CW, Wright CB, Doty DB, et al. Does visual interpretation of the coronary arteriogram predict the physiologic importance of a coronary stenosis? N Engl J Med 1984;310:819-824.[Web of Science][Medline] 13. Kern MJ, Lerman A, Bech JW, et al. Physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology Circulation 2006;114:1321-1341.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 14. Tobis J, Azarbal B, Slavin L. Assessment of intermediate severity coronary lesions in the catheterization laboratory J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:839-848.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 15. Christou MA, Siontis GC, Katritsis DG, Ioannidis JP. Meta-analysis of fractional flow reserve versus quantitative coronary angiography and noninvasive imaging for evaluation of myocardial ischemia Am J Cardiol 2007;99:450-456.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 16. Uren NG, Melin JA, De Bruyne B, Wijns W, Baudhuin T, Camici PG. Relation between myocardial blood flow and the severity of coronary-artery stenosis N Engl J Med 1994;330:1782-1788.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 17. Silber S, Albertsson P, Aviles FF, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2005;26:804-847.[Free Full Text] 18. Smith Jr. SC, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld Jr. JW, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) Circulation 2006;113:e166-e286.[Free Full Text] 19. Schuijf JD, Wijns W, Jukema JW, et al. Relationship between noninvasive coronary angiography with multi-slice computed tomography and myocardial perfusion imaging J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:2508-2514.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 20. Hacker M, Jakobs T, Hack N, et al. Sixty-four slice spiral CT angiography does not predict the functional relevance of coronary artery stenoses in patients with stable angina Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:4-10.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 21. Rispler S, Keidar Z, Ghersin E, et al. Integrated single-photon emission computed tomography and computed tomography coronary angiography for the assessment of hemodynamically significant coronary artery lesions J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1059-1067.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 22. Hacker M, Jakobs T, Matthiesen F, et al. Comparison of spiral multidetector CT angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging in the noninvasive detection of functionally relevant coronary artery lesions: first clinical experiences J Nucl Med 2005;46:1294-1300.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 23. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Heyndrickx GR, Hodeige D, Kirkeeide R, Gould KL. Pressure-derived fractional flow reserve to assess serial epicardial stenoses: theoretical basis and animal validation Circulation 2000;101:1840-1847.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 24. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Bech GJ, et al. Coronary pressure measurement to assess the hemodynamic significance of serial stenoses within one coronary artery: validation in humans Circulation 2000;102:2371-2377.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 25. Reiber JH, Serruys PW, Kooijman CJ, et al. Assessment of short-, medium-, and long-term variations in arterial dimensions from computer-assisted quantitation of coronary cineangiograms Circulation 1985;71:280-288.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 26. Pijls NH, Van Gelder B, Van der Voort P, et al. Fractional flow reserve. A useful index to evaluate the influence of an epicardial coronary stenosis on myocardial blood flow. Circulation 1995;92:3183-3193.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 27. De Bruyne B, Bartunek J, Sys SU, Heyndrickx GR. Relation between myocardial fractional flow reserve calculated from coronary pressure measurements and exercise-induced myocardial ischemia Circulation 1995;92:39-46.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 28. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses N Engl J Med 1996;334:1703-1708.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 29. Kern MJ. Coronary physiology revisited: practical insights from the cardiac catheterization laboratory Circulation 2000;101:1344-1351.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 30. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement Lancet 1986;1:307-310.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 31. De Bruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA, et al. Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in humans. Validation with positron emission tomography. Circulation 1994;89:1013-1022.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 32. Bartunek J, Marwick TH, Rodrigues AC, et al. Dobutamine-induced wall motion abnormalities: correlations with myocardial fractional flow reserve and quantitative coronary angiography J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27:1429-1436.[Abstract] 33. Costa MA, Shoemaker S, Futamatsu H, et al. Quantitative magnetic resonance perfusion imaging detects anatomic and physiologic coronary artery disease as measured by coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:514-522.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 34. Rieber J, Huber A, Erhard I, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease: a comparison with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve Eur Heart J 2006;27:1465-1471.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 35. Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER study J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:2105-2111.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 36. Legalery P, Schiele F, Seronde MF, et al. One-year outcome of patients submitted to routine fractional flow reserve assessment to determine the need for angioplasty Eur Heart J 2005;26:2623-2629.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 37. Wongpraparut N, Yalamanchili V, Pasnoori V, et al. Thirty-month outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided versus conventional multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention Am J Cardiol 2005;96:877-884.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 38. Gould KL, Kelley KO, Bolson EL. Experimental validation of quantitative coronary arteriography for determining pressure-flow characteristics of coronary stenosis Circulation 1982;66:930-937.[Free Full Text] 39. de Feyter PJ, Serruys PW, Davies MJ, Richardson P, Lubsen J, Oliver MF. Quantitative coronary angiography to measure progression and regression of coronary atherosclerosis. Value, limitations, and implications for clinical trials. Circulation 1991;84:412-423.[Free Full Text] 40. Gilard M, Le Gal G, Cornily JC, et al. Midterm prognosis of patients with suspected coronary artery disease and normal multislice computed tomographic findings: a prospective management outcome study Arch Intern Med 2007;167:1686-1689.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 41. Min JK, Shaw LJ, Devereux RB, et al. Prognostic value of multidetector coronary computed tomographic angiography for prediction of all-cause mortality J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1161-1170.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 42. Ragosta M, Bishop AH, Lipson LC, et al. Comparison between angiography and fractional flow reserve versus single-photon emission computed tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging for determining lesion significance in patients with multivessel coronary disease Am J Cardiol 2007;99:896-902.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 43. Lima RS, Watson DD, Goode AR, et al. Incremental value of combined perfusion and function over perfusion alone by gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging for detection of severe three-vessel coronary artery disease J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:64-70.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 44. Hoffmann MH, Shi H, Schmitz BL, et al. Noninvasive coronary angiography with multislice computed tomography JAMA 2005;293:2471-2478.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Related Article
-
Inside This Issue of JACC
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008 52: A29-A30.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
B. S. Ko, J. D. Cameron, I. T. Meredith, M. Leung, P. R. Antonis, A. Nasis, M. Crossett, S. A. Hope, S. J. Lehman, J. Troupis, et al.
Computed tomography stress myocardial perfusion imaging in patients considered for revascularization: a comparison with fractional flow reserve
Eur. Heart J.,
January 1, 2012;
33(1):
67 - 77.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. E. Montgomery, J. J. Puthumana, J. M. Fox, and K. O. Ogunyankin
Global longitudinal strain aids the detection of non-obstructive coronary artery disease in the resting echocardiogram
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging,
December 13, 2011;
(2011)
jer282v1.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Sen, J. Escaned, I. S. Malik, G. W. Mikhail, R. A. Foale, R. Mila, J. Tarkin, R. Petraco, C. Broyd, R. Jabbour, et al.
Development and Validation of a New Adenosine-Independent Index of Stenosis Severity From Coronary Wave-Intensity Analysis: Results of the ADVISE (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation) Study
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
December 7, 2011;
(2011)
j.jacc.2011.11.003v1.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B.-K. Koo, A. Erglis, J.-H. Doh, D. V. Daniels, S. Jegere, H.-S. Kim, A. Dunning, T. DeFrance, A. Lansky, J. Leipsic, et al.
Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Coronary Stenoses by Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve Computed From Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiograms: Results From the Prospective Multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (Diagnosis of Ischemia-Causing Stenoses Obtained Via Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve) Study
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
November 1, 2011;
58(19):
1989 - 1997.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Liga, C. Marini, M. Coceani, E. Filidei, M. Schlueter, M. Bianchi, G. Rossi, S. Pardini, P. Salvadori, O. Parodi, et al.
Structural Abnormalities of the Coronary Arterial Wall--in Addition to Luminal Narrowing--Affect Myocardial Blood Flow Reserve
J. Nucl. Med.,
November 1, 2011;
52(11):
1704 - 1712.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Naya, V. L. Murthy, R. Blankstein, A. Sitek, J. Hainer, C. Foster, M. Gaber, J. M. Fantony, S. Dorbala, and M. F. Di Carli
Quantitative Relationship Between the Extent and Morphology of Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque and Downstream Myocardial Perfusion
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
October 18, 2011;
58(17):
1807 - 1816.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Bamberg, A. Becker, F. Schwarz, R. P. Marcus, M. Greif, F. von Ziegler, R. Blankstein, U. Hoffmann, W. H. Sommer, V. S. Hoffmann, et al.
Detection of Hemodynamically Significant Coronary Artery Stenosis: Incremental Diagnostic Value of Dynamic CT-based Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
Radiology,
September 1, 2011;
260(3):
689 - 698.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. F. Di Carli and V. L. Murthy
Cardiac PET/CT for the Evaluation of Known or Suspected Coronary Artery Disease
RadioGraphics,
September 1, 2011;
31(5):
1239 - 1254.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. De Bruyne and C. Van Mieghem
Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: CONFIRMations and Perspectives
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
August 16, 2011;
58(8):
861 - 862.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Techasith and R. C. Cury
Stress Myocardial CT Perfusion: An Update and Future Perspective
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
August 1, 2011;
4(8):
905 - 916.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Wijns and J. D. Schuijf
Nonobstructive Coronary Plaque Matters
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
July 26, 2011;
58(5):
520 - 521.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y.-H. Kim, D.-W. Park, J.-Y. Lee, W.-J. Kim, S.-C. Yun, J.-M. Ahn, H. G. Song, J.-H. Oh, J. S. Park, S.-J. Kang, et al.
Impact of Angiographic Complete Revascularization After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation or Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease
Circulation,
May 31, 2011;
123(21):
2373 - 2381.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. J. W. Chow, M. Kass, O. Gagne, L. Chen, Y. Yam, A. Dick, and G. A. Wells
Can Differences in Corrected Coronary Opacification Measured With Computed Tomography Predict Resting Coronary Artery Flow?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
March 15, 2011;
57(11):
1280 - 1288.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Arbab-Zadeh and J. Hoe
Quantification of Coronary Arterial Stenoses by Multidetector CT Angiography in Comparison With Conventional Angiography: Methods, Caveats, and Implications
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
February 1, 2011;
4(2):
191 - 202.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. H. J. Pijls and P. A. L. Tonino
Reply
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 4, 2011;
57(1):
116 - 116.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Schoenhagen and E. Nagel
Noninvasive Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease: Anatomy, Physiology, and Clinical Outcome
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
January 1, 2011;
4(1):
62 - 64.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. L. Gould, R. Kirkeeide, and N. P. Johnson
Coronary Branch Steal: Experimental Validation and Clinical Implications of Interacting Stenosis in Branching Coronary Arteries
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging,
November 1, 2010;
3(6):
701 - 709.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Morton, A. Schuster, D. Perera, and E. Nagel
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to guide complex revascularization in stable coronary artery disease
Eur. Heart J.,
September 2, 2010;
31(18):
2209 - 2215.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Kajander, E. Joutsiniemi, M. Saraste, M. Pietila, H. Ukkonen, A. Saraste, H. T. Sipila, M. Teras, M. Maki, J. Airaksinen, et al.
Cardiac Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Imaging Accurately Detects Anatomically and Functionally Significant Coronary Artery Disease
Circulation,
August 10, 2010;
122(6):
603 - 613.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K.-T. Ho, K.-C. Chua, E. Klotz, and C. Panknin
Stress and Rest Dynamic Myocardial Perfusion Imaging by Evaluation of Complete Time-Attenuation Curves With Dual-Source CT
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
August 1, 2010;
3(8):
811 - 820.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. B. Mark, D. S. Berman, M. J. Budoff, J. J. Carr, T. C. Gerber, H. S. Hecht, M. A. Hlatky, J. M. Hodgson, M. S. Lauer, J. M. Miller, et al.
ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT 2010 Expert Consensus Document on Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
June 8, 2010;
55(23):
2663 - 2699.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS, D. B. Mark, D. S. Berman, M. J. Budoff, J. J. Carr, T. C. Gerber, H. S. Hecht, M. A. Hlatky, J. M. Hodgson, M. S. Lauer, et al.
ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT 2010 Expert Consensus Document on Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents
Circulation,
June 8, 2010;
121(22):
2509 - 2543.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. G. Friedrich
Testing for Myocardial Ischemia: The End of Surrogates?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
April 1, 2010;
3(4):
385 - 387.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. F. Donati, H. Scheffel, P. Stolzmann, S. Baumuller, A. Plass, S. Leschka, and H. Alkadhi
Combined Cardiac CT and MRI for the Comprehensive Workup of Hemodynamically Relevant Coronary Stenoses
Am. J. Roentgenol.,
April 1, 2010;
194(4):
920 - 926.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. K. Min, L. J. Shaw, and D. S. Berman
The Present State of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: A Process in Evolution
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
March 9, 2010;
55(10):
957 - 965.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. B. Mark and D. F. Kong
Cardiac Computed Tomographic Angiography: What's the Prognosis?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
March 9, 2010;
55(10):
1029 - 1031.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Gibbons, P. A. Araoz, and E. E. Williamson
The Year in Cardiac Imaging
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
February 2, 2010;
55(5):
483 - 495.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Kern and H. Samady
Current Concepts of Integrated Coronary Physiology in the Catheterization Laboratory
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 19, 2010;
55(3):
173 - 185.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. J. de Feijter and C. Schultz
Chapter 12 Coronary computed tomography for the interventionalist
Oxford Textbook of Interventional Cardiology,
January 1, 2010;
1(1):
med-9780199569083-chapter - med-9780199569083-chapter.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Blankstein, L. D. Shturman, I. S. Rogers, J. A. Rocha-Filho, D. R. Okada, A. Sarwar, A. V. Soni, H. Bezerra, B. B. Ghoshhajra, M. Petranovic, et al.
Adenosine-Induced Stress Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Using Dual-Source Cardiac Computed Tomography
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
September 15, 2009;
54(12):
1072 - 1084.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Achenbach
Stress Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion: Steps, Questions, and Layers
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
September 15, 2009;
54(12):
1085 - 1087.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. L. Gould
Does Coronary Flow Trump Coronary Anatomy?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
August 1, 2009;
2(8):
1009 - 1023.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Sarno, I. Decraemer, P. K. Vanhoenacker, B. De Bruyne, M. Hamilos, T. Cuisset, E. Wyffels, J. Bartunek, G. R. Heyndrickx, and W. Wijns
On the Inappropriateness of Noninvasive Multidetector Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography to Trigger Coronary Revascularization: A Comparison With Invasive Angiography
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
June 1, 2009;
2(6):
550 - 557.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. B. Meijboom, M. F.L. Meijs, J. D. Schuijf, M. J. Cramer, N. R. Mollet, C. A.G. van Mieghem, K. Nieman, J. M. van Werkhoven, G. Pundziute, A. C. Weustink, et al.
Reply
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
May 12, 2009;
53(19):
1825 - 1826.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. C. Hendel
Is Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography the Most Accurate and Effective Noninvasive Imaging Tool to Evaluate Patients With Acute Chest Pain in the Emergency Department?: CT Coronary Angiography Is the Most Accurate and Effective Noninvasive Imaging Tool for Evaluating Patients Presenting With Chest Pain to the Emergency Department: Antagonist Viewpoint
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging,
May 1, 2009;
2(3):
264 - 275.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Ramcharitar, F. Pugliese, C. Schultz, J. Ligthart, P. de Feyter, H. Li, N. Mollet, M. van de Ent, P. W. Serruys, and R. J. van Geuns
Integration of Multislice Computed Tomography With Magnetic Navigation Facilitates Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Without Additional Contrast Agents
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
March 3, 2009;
53(9):
741 - 746.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N. DeMaria, O. Ben-Yehuda, J. J. Bax, G. K. Feld, B. H. Greenberg, W. Y.W. Lew, J. A.C. Lima, A. S. Maisel, S. M. Narayan, D. J. Sahn, et al.
Highlights of the Year in JACC 2008
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 27, 2009;
53(4):
373 - 398.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. J. de Feyter, S. Achenbach, and K. Nieman
CHAPTER 6 Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
ESC Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine,
January 1, 2009;
2(1):
med-9780199566990-chapter - med-9780199566990-chapter.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods