A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Optimal diagnostic approach for using CT-derived quantitative flow ratio in patients with stenosis on coronary computed tomography angiography. | LitMetric

Background: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived quantitative flow ratio (CT-QFR) is an on-site non-invasive technique estimating invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). This study assesses the diagnostic performance of using most distal CT-QFR versus lesion-specific CT-QFR approach for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods: Prospectively enrolled de novo chest pain patients (n ​= ​445) with ≥50 ​% visual diameter stenosis on CCTA were referred for invasive evaluation. On-site CT-QFR was analyzed post-hoc blinded to angiographic data and obtained as both most distal (MD-QFR) and lesion-specific CT-QFR (LS-QFR). Abnormal CT-QFR was defined as ≤0.80. Hemodynamically obstructive CAD was defined as invasive FFR ≤0.80 or ≥70 ​% diameter stenosis by 3D-quantitative coronary angiography.

Results: In total 404/445 patients had paired CT-QFR and invasive analyses of whom 149/404 (37 ​%) had hemodynamically obstructive CAD. MD-QFR and LS-QFR classified 188 (47 ​%) and 165 (41 ​%) patients as abnormal, respectively. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for MD-QFR was 0.83 vs. 0.85 for LS-QFR, p ​= ​0.01. Sensitivities for MD-QFR and LS-QFR were 80 ​% (95%CI: 73-86) vs. 77 ​% (95%CI: 69-83), p ​= ​0.03, respectively, and specificities were 73 ​% (95%CI: 67-78) vs. 80 ​% (95%CI: 75-85), p ​< ​0.01, respectively. Positive predictive values for MD-QFR and LS-QFR were 63 ​% vs. 69 ​%, p ​< ​0.01, respectively, and negative predictive values for MD-QFR and LS-QFR were 86 ​% vs. 85 ​%, p ​= ​0.39, respectively).

Conclusion: Using a lesion-specific CT-QFR approach has superior discrimination of hemodynamically obstructive CAD compared to a most distal CT-QFR approach. CT-QFR identified most cases of hemodynamically obstructive CAD while a normal CT-QFR excluded hemodynamically obstructive CAD in the majority of patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2024.01.004DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

hemodynamically obstructive
12
quantitative flow
8
flow ratio
8
coronary computed
8
computed tomography
8
tomography angiography
8
lesion-specific ct-qfr
8
diameter stenosis
8
obstructive cad
8
md-qfr ls-qfr
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!