OBJECTIVES This study compared the performance of the quantitative flow ratio (QFR) with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial... Show moreOBJECTIVES This study compared the performance of the quantitative flow ratio (QFR) with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) for the diagnosis of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-defined coronary artery disease (CAD).BACKGROUND QFR estimates FFR solely based on cine contrast images acquired during invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Head-to-head studies comparing QFR with noninvasive MPI are lacking.METHODS A total of 208 (624 vessels) patients underwent technetium -99m tetrofosmin SPECT and [15O]H2O PET imaging before ICA in conjunction with FFR measurements. ICA was obtained without using a dedicated QFR acquisition protocol, and QFR computation was attempted in all vessels interrogated by FFR (552 vessels).RESULTS QFR computation succeeded in 286 (52%) vessels. QFR correlated well with invasive FFR overall (R = 0.79; p < 0.001) and in the subset of vessels with an intermediate (30% to 90%) diameter stenosis (R = 0.76; p < 0.001). Overall, per-vessel analysis demonstrated QFR to exhibit a superior sensitivity (70%) in comparison with SPECT (29%; p < 0.001), whereas it was similar to PET (75%; p = 1.000). Specificity of QFR (93%) was higher than PET (79%; p < 0.001) and not different from SPECT (96%; p = 1.000). As such, the accuracy of QFR (88%) was superior to both SPECT (82%; p = 0.010) and PET (78%; p = 0.004). Lastly, the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of QFR, in the overall sample (0.94) and among vessels with an intermediate lesion (0.90) was higher than SPECT (0.63 and 0.61; p < 0.001 for both) and PET (0.82; p < 0.001 and 0.77; p = 0.002), respectively.CONCLUSIONS In this head-to-head comparative study, QFR exhibited a higher diagnostic value for detecting FFRdefined significant CAD compared with perfusion imaging by SPECT or PET. (J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2020;13:1976-85) (c) 2020 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has recently published new guidelines on the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). The 2019 guideline identified six common clinical... Show moreThe European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has recently published new guidelines on the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). The 2019 guideline identified six common clinical scenarios of CCS defined by the different evolutionary phases of coronary artery disease (CAD), excluding the situations in which an acute coronary event, often with coronary thrombus formation, dominates the clinical presentation. This review aims at providing a summary of novel or revised concepts in the guidelines together with the recent data underlying the major changes on the use of cardiac imaging in patients with suspected or known CCS.Based on data from contemporary cohorts of patients referred for diagnostic testing, the pre-test probabilities of CAD based on age, sex and symptoms have been adjusted substantially downward as compared with 2013 ESC guidelines. Further, the impact of various risk factors and modifiers on the pre-test probability was highlighted and a new concept of 'Clinical likelihood of CAD' was introduced. Recommendations regarding diagnostic tests to establish or rule-out obstructive CAD have been updated with recent data on their diagnostic performance in different patient groups and impact on patient outcome. As the initial strategy to diagnose CAD in symptomatic patients, non-invasive functional imaging for myocardial ischaemia, coronary computed tomography angiography or invasive coronary angiography combined with functional evaluation may be used, unless obstructive CAD can be excluded by clinical assessment alone. When available, imaging tests instead of the exercise electrocardiogram are recommended when following the non-invasive diagnostic strategy. Show less
Manabe, O.; Kikuchi, T.; Scholte, A.J.H.A.; Mahdiui, M. el; Nishii, R.; Zhang, M.R.; ... ; Yoshinaga, K. 2018
