JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2020
Prognostic Value of Stress Dynamic Computed Tomography Perfusion With Computed Tomography Delayed Enhancement.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Nakamura Satoshi, Kitagawa Kakuya, Goto Yoshitaka, Takafuji Masafumi, Nakamori Shiro, Kurita Tairo, Dohi Kaoru, Sakuma Hajime
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the prognostic value of stress dynamic computed tomography (CT) perfusion (CTP) with CT delayed enhancement (CTDE) in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD) and in subgroups of patients with stent, heavy calcification, or stenosis.
BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of stress dynamic CTP with CTDE is unknown.
METHODS: Participants were 540 patients with suspected or known CAD. Major adverse cardiac event(s) (MACE) consisted of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or hospitalization for congestive heart failure. Ischemic score was calculated by scoring the reduction of normalized myocardial blood flow in 16 segments excluding areas of myocardial scarring. Ischemic perfusion defect (IPD) was defined as Ischemic score ≥4. Scar score was also calculated by scoring the transmural extent of scarring in each segment on CTDE.
RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 2.9 years, 43 MACEs occurred. By adding IPD to obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis) on coronary CT angiography, the concordance index for predicting MACEs increased from 0.73 to 0.82 in patients with suspected CAD (p = 0.028) and from 0.61 to 0.73 in patients with known CAD (p = 0.004). IPD and scar score of ≥4 were independent predictors when adjusted for each other in patients with suspected (adjusted hazard ratios: 7.5 [p < 0.001] and 3.0 [p = 0.034], respectively) or known CAD (adjusted hazard ratios: 4.4 [p = 0.001] and 3.2 [p = 0.024], respectively). Patients with IPD had a higher annualized event rate than those without IPD in subgroups of those with stent (11.5% vs. 2.6%; p < 0.001), heavy calcification (13.3% vs. 3.1%; p < 0.001), 50% to 69% stenosis (8.8% vs. 1.0%; p < 0.001), or ≥70% stenosis (12.4% vs. 3.6%; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Stress dynamic CTP with CTDE had incremental prognostic value over CT angiography in each group with suspected or known CAD and was prognostically useful in subgroups of patients with stent, heavy calcification, or obstructive CAD. IPD and myocardial scarring may play complementary roles in prognostic stratification.
BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of stress dynamic CTP with CTDE is unknown.
METHODS: Participants were 540 patients with suspected or known CAD. Major adverse cardiac event(s) (MACE) consisted of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or hospitalization for congestive heart failure. Ischemic score was calculated by scoring the reduction of normalized myocardial blood flow in 16 segments excluding areas of myocardial scarring. Ischemic perfusion defect (IPD) was defined as Ischemic score ≥4. Scar score was also calculated by scoring the transmural extent of scarring in each segment on CTDE.
RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 2.9 years, 43 MACEs occurred. By adding IPD to obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis) on coronary CT angiography, the concordance index for predicting MACEs increased from 0.73 to 0.82 in patients with suspected CAD (p = 0.028) and from 0.61 to 0.73 in patients with known CAD (p = 0.004). IPD and scar score of ≥4 were independent predictors when adjusted for each other in patients with suspected (adjusted hazard ratios: 7.5 [p < 0.001] and 3.0 [p = 0.034], respectively) or known CAD (adjusted hazard ratios: 4.4 [p = 0.001] and 3.2 [p = 0.024], respectively). Patients with IPD had a higher annualized event rate than those without IPD in subgroups of those with stent (11.5% vs. 2.6%; p < 0.001), heavy calcification (13.3% vs. 3.1%; p < 0.001), 50% to 69% stenosis (8.8% vs. 1.0%; p < 0.001), or ≥70% stenosis (12.4% vs. 3.6%; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Stress dynamic CTP with CTDE had incremental prognostic value over CT angiography in each group with suspected or known CAD and was prognostically useful in subgroups of patients with stent, heavy calcification, or obstructive CAD. IPD and myocardial scarring may play complementary roles in prognostic stratification.