Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRønnow Sand, NPen_US
dc.contributor.authorNissen, Len_US
dc.contributor.authorWinther, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorPetersen, SEen_US
dc.contributor.authorWestra, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorChristiansen, EHen_US
dc.contributor.authorLarsen, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorHolm, NRen_US
dc.contributor.authorIsaksen, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorUrbonaviciene, Gen_US
dc.contributor.authorDeibjerg, Len_US
dc.contributor.authorHusain, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorThomsen, KKen_US
dc.contributor.authorRohold, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorBøtker, HEen_US
dc.contributor.authorBøttcher, Men_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-02T11:27:31Z
dc.date.available2019-06-28en_US
dc.date.issued2019-08-14en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/58758
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare head-to-head fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) (FFRCT) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) stress perfusion imaging for prediction of standard-of-care-guided coronary revascularization in patients with stable chest pain and obstructive coronary artery disease by coronary CTA. BACKGROUND: FFRCT is a novel modality for noninvasive functional testing. The clinical utility of FFRCT compared to CMR stress perfusion imaging in symptomatic patients with coronary artery disease is unknown. METHODS: Prospective study of patients (n=110) with stable angina pectoris and 1 or more coronary stenosis ≥50% by coronary CTA. All patients underwent invasive coronary angiography. Revascularization was FFR-guided in stenoses ranging from 30% to 90%. FFRCT ≤0.80 in 1 or more coronary artery or a reversible perfusion defect (≥2 segments) by CMR categorized patients with ischemia. FFRCT and CMR were analyzed by core laboratories blinded for patient management. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients (35%) underwent revascularization. Per-patient diagnostic performance for identifying standard-of-care-guided revascularization, (95% confidence interval) yielded a sensitivity of 97% (86 to 100) for FFRCT versus 47% (31 to 64) for CMR, p < 0.001; corresponding specificity was 42% (30 to 54) versus 88% (78 to 94), p < 0.001; negative predictive value of 97% (91 to 100) versus 76% (67 to 85), p < 0.05; positive predictive value of 47% (36 to 58) versus 67% (49 to 84), p < 0.05; and accuracy of 61% (51 to 70) versus 74% (64 to 82), p > 0.05, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable chest pain referred to invasive coronary angiography based on coronary CTA, FFRCT and CMR yielded similar overall diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity for prediction of revascularization was highest for FFRCT, whereas specificity was highest for CMR.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipDanish Heart Foundation (grant no. 15-R99-A5837-22920)en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipHealth Research Fund of Central Denmark Regionen_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJACC Cardiovasc Imagingen_US
dc.rights© 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectcardiac magnetic resonance stress perfusion imagingen_US
dc.subjectcoronary computed tomography angiography–derived fractional flow reserveen_US
dc.subjectrevascularizationen_US
dc.subjectstable anginaen_US
dc.titlePrediction of Coronary Revascularization in Stable Angina: Comparison of FFRCT With CMR Stress Perfusion Imaging.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holder(c) 2019 THE AUTHORS.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.06.028en_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31422146en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-06-28en_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
qmul.funderNIHR BRC at Barts::National Institute of Health Researchen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license