JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2019
CT Perfusion Versus Coronary CT Angiography in Patients With Suspected In-Stent Restenosis or CAD Progression.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Andreini Daniele, Mushtaq Saima, Pontone Gianluca, Conte Edoardo, Collet Carlos, Sonck Jeroen, D'Errico Andrea, Di Odoardo Luca, Guglielmo Marco, Baggiano Andrea, Trabattoni Daniela, Ravagnani Paolo, Montorsi Piero, Teruzzi Giovanni, Olivares Paolo, Fabbiocchi Franco, De Martini Stefano, Calligaris Giuseppe, Annoni Andrea, Mancini Maria Elisabetta, Formenti Alberto, Magatelli Marco, Consiglio Elisa, Muscogiuri Giuseppe, Lombardi Federico, Fiorentini Cesare, Bartorelli Antonio L, Pepi Mauro
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) alone, adenosine-stress myocardial perfusion assessed by computed tomography (CTP) alone, and coronary CTA + CTP by using a 16-cm Z-axis coverage scanner versus invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the clinical standard.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic performance of coronary CTA for in-stent restenosis detection is still challenging. Recently, CTP showed additional diagnostic power over coronary CTA in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. However, few data are available on CTP performance in patients with previous stent implantation.
METHODS: Consecutive stable patients with previous coronary stenting referred for ICA were enrolled. All patients underwent stress myocardial CTP and rest CTP + coronary CTA. Invasive FFR was performed during ICA when clinically indicated. The diagnostic rate and diagnostic accuracy of coronary CTA, CTP, and coronary CTA + CTP were evaluated in stent-, territory-, and patient-based analyses.
RESULTS: In the 150 enrolled patients (132 men; mean age 65.1 ± 9.1 years), the CTP diagnostic rate was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA in all analyses (territory based [96.7% vs. 91.1%; p < 0.0001] and patient based [96% vs. 68%; p < 0.0001]). When ICA was used as gold standard, CTP diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA in all analyses (territory based [92.1% vs. 85.5%, p < 0.03] and patient based [86.7% vs. 76.7%, p < 0.03]). The concordant coronary CTA + CTP assessment exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy values versus ICA (95.8% in the territory-based analysis). The diagnostic accuracy of CTP was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA (75% vs. 30.5%; p < 0.001). The radiation exposure of coronary CTA + CTP was 4.15 ± 1.5 mSv.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coronary stents, CTP significantly improved the diagnostic rate and accuracy of coronary CTA alone compared with both ICA and invasive FFR as gold standard.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic performance of coronary CTA for in-stent restenosis detection is still challenging. Recently, CTP showed additional diagnostic power over coronary CTA in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. However, few data are available on CTP performance in patients with previous stent implantation.
METHODS: Consecutive stable patients with previous coronary stenting referred for ICA were enrolled. All patients underwent stress myocardial CTP and rest CTP + coronary CTA. Invasive FFR was performed during ICA when clinically indicated. The diagnostic rate and diagnostic accuracy of coronary CTA, CTP, and coronary CTA + CTP were evaluated in stent-, territory-, and patient-based analyses.
RESULTS: In the 150 enrolled patients (132 men; mean age 65.1 ± 9.1 years), the CTP diagnostic rate was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA in all analyses (territory based [96.7% vs. 91.1%; p < 0.0001] and patient based [96% vs. 68%; p < 0.0001]). When ICA was used as gold standard, CTP diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA in all analyses (territory based [92.1% vs. 85.5%, p < 0.03] and patient based [86.7% vs. 76.7%, p < 0.03]). The concordant coronary CTA + CTP assessment exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy values versus ICA (95.8% in the territory-based analysis). The diagnostic accuracy of CTP was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA (75% vs. 30.5%; p < 0.001). The radiation exposure of coronary CTA + CTP was 4.15 ± 1.5 mSv.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coronary stents, CTP significantly improved the diagnostic rate and accuracy of coronary CTA alone compared with both ICA and invasive FFR as gold standard.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdenosineAgedComputed Tomography AngiographyCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary RestenosisDisease ProgressionFemaleFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultidetector Computed TomographyMyocardial Perfusion ImagingPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesStentsTreatment OutcomeVasodilator Agents