Dataset Information

CT Fractional Flow Reserve for the Diagnosis of Myocardial Bridging-Related Ischemia: A Study Using Dynamic CT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging as a Reference Standard.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate the diagnostic performance of CT fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) for myocardial bridging-related ischemia using dynamic CT myocardial perfusion imaging (CT-MPI) as a reference standard.

Materials and methods

Dynamic CT-MPI and coronary CT angiography (CCTA) data obtained from 498 symptomatic patients were retrospectively reviewed. Seventy-five patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 62.7 ± 13.2 years; 48 males) who showed myocardial bridging in the left anterior descending artery without concomitant obstructive stenosis on the imaging were included. The change in CT-FFR across myocardial bridging (ΔCT-FFR, defined as the difference in CT-FFR values between the proximal and distal ends of the myocardial bridging) in different cardiac phases, as well as other anatomical parameters, were measured to evaluate their performance for diagnosing myocardial bridging-related myocardial ischemia using dynamic CT-MPI as the reference standard (myocardial blood flow < 100 mL/100 mL/min or myocardial blood flow ratio ≤ 0.8).

Results

ΔCT-FFR_systolic (ΔCT-FFR calculated in the best systolic phase) was higher in patients with vs. without myocardial bridging-related myocardial ischemia (median [interquartile range], 0.12 [0.08-0.17] vs. 0.04 [0.01-0.07], p < 0.001), while CT-FFR_systolic (CT-FFR distal to the myocardial bridging calculated in the best systolic phase) was lower (0.85 [0.81-0.89] vs. 0.91 [0.88-0.96], p = 0.043). In contrast, ΔCT-FFR_diastolic (ΔCT-FFR calculated in the best diastolic phase) and CT-FFR_diastolic (CT-FFR distal to the myocardial bridging calculated in the best diastolic phase) did not differ significantly. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that ΔCT-FFR_systolic had largest area under the curve (0.822; 95% confidence interval, 0.717-0.901) for identifying myocardial bridging-related ischemia. ΔCT-FFR_systolic had the highest sensitivity (91.7%) and negative predictive value (NPV) (97.8%). ΔCT-FFR_diastolic had the highest specificity (85.7%) for diagnosing myocardial bridging-related ischemia. The positive predictive values of all CT-related parameters were low.

Conclusion

ΔCT-FFR_systolic reliably excluded myocardial bridging-related ischemia with high sensitivity and NPV. Myocardial bridging showing positive CT-FFR results requires further evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Yu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8628161 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose of reviewAccumulating evidence exists for the value of coronary physiology for clinical decision-making in ischemic heart disease (IHD). The most frequently used pressure-derived index to assess stenosis severity, the fractional flow reserve (FFR), has long been considered the gold standard for this purpose, despite the fact that the FFR assesses solely epicardial stenosis severity and aims to estimate coronary flow impairment in the coronary circulation. The coronary flow reserve (CFR) directly assesses coronary blood flow in the coronary circulation, including both the epicardial coronary artery and the coronary microvasculature, but is nowadays less established than FFR. It is now recognized that both tools may provide insight into the pathophysiological substrate of ischemic heart disease, and that particularly combined FFR and CFR measurements provide a comprehensive insight into the multilevel involvement of IHD. This review discusses the diagnostic and prognostic characteristics, as well as future implications of combined assessment of FFR and CFR pressure and flow measurements as parameters for inducible ischemia.Recent findingsFFR and CFR disagree in up to 40% of all cases, giving rise to fundamental questions regarding the role of FFR in contemporary ischemic heart disease management, and implying a renewed approach in clinical management of these patients using combined coronary pressure and flow measurement to allow appropriate identification of patients at risk for cardiovascular events. This review emphasizes the value of comprehensive coronary physiology measurements in assessing the pathophysiological substrate of IHD, and the importance of acknowledging the broad spectrum of epicardial and microcirculatory involvement in IHD. Increasing interest and large clinical trials are expected to further strengthen the potential of advanced coronary physiology in interventional cardiology, consequently inducing reconsideration of current clinical guidelines.

Project description:Background Functional assessment of myocardial bridging (MB) remains clinically challenging because of the dynamic nature of the extravascular coronary compression with a certain degree of intraluminal coronary reduction. The aim of our study was to assess performance and diagnostic value of diastolic-fractional flow reserve (d-FFR) during dobutamine provocation versus conventional-FFR during adenosine provocation with exercise-induced myocardial ischemia as reference. Methods and Results This prospective study includes 60 symptomatic patients (45 men, mean age 57±9 years) with MB on the left anterior descending artery and systolic compression ≥50% diameter stenosis. Patients were evaluated by exercise stress-echocardiography test, and both conventional-FFR and d-FFR in the distal segment of left anterior descending artery during intravenous infusion of adenosine (140 μg/kg per minute) and dobutamine (10-50 μg/kg per minute), separately. Exercise-stress-echocardiography test was positive for myocardial ischemia in 19/60 patients (32%). Conventional-FFR during adenosine and peak dobutamine had similar values (0.84±0.04 versus 0.84±0.06, P=0.852), but d-FFR during peak dobutamine was significantly lower than d-FFR during adenosine (0.76±0.08 versus 0.79±0.08, P=0.018). Diastolic-FFR during peak dobutamine was significantly lower in the exercise-stress-echocardiography test -positive group compared with the exercise- stress-echocardiography test -negative group (0.70±0.07 versus 0.79±0.06, P<0.001), but not during adenosine (0.79±0.07 versus 0.78±0.09, P=0.613). Among physiological indices, d-FFR during peak dobutamine was the only independent predictor of functionally significant MB (odds ratio, 0.870; 95% CI, 0.767-0.986, P=0.03). Receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis identifies the optimal d-FFR during peak dobutamine cut-off ≤0.76 (area under curve, 0.927; 95% CI, 0.833-1.000; P<0.001) with a sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of 95%, 95%, 90%, and 98%, respectively, for identifying MB associated with stress-induced ischemia. Conclusions Diastolic-FFR, but not conventional-FFR, during inotropic stimulation with high-dose dobutamine, in comparison to vasodilatation with adenosine, provides more reliable functional significance of MB in relation to stress-induced myocardial ischemia.