Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hemodynamic impact of coronary stenosis using computed tomography: comparison between noninvasive fractional flow reserve and 3D fusion of coronary angiography with stress myocardial perfusion

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Vasodilator-stress CT perfusion imaging in addition to CT coronary angiography (CTCA) may provide a single-test alternative to nuclear stress testing, commonly used to assess hemodynamic significance of stenosis. Another alternative is fractional flow reserve (FFR) calculated from cardiac CT images. We studied the concordance between these two approaches and their relationship to outcomes. We prospectively studied 150 patients with chest pain, who underwent CTCA and regadenoson CT. CTCA images were interpreted for presence and severity of stenosis. Fused 3D displays of subendocardial X-ray attenuation with coronary arteries were created to detect stress perfusion defects (SPD) in each coronary territory. In patients with stenosis > 25%, CT-FFR was quantified. Significant stenosis was determined by: (1) combination of stenosis > 50% with an SPD, (2) CT-FFR ≤ 0.80. Patients were followed-up for 36 ± 25 months for death, myocardial infarction or revascularization. After excluding patients with normal arteries and technical/quality issues, in final analysis of 76 patients, CTCA depicted stenosis > 70% in 13/224 arteries, 50–70% in 24, and < 50% in 187. CT-FFR ≤ 0.80 was found in 41/224 arteries, and combination of SPD with > 50% stenosis in 31/224 arteries. Inter-technique agreement was 89%. Despite high incidence of abnormal CT-FFR (30/76 patients), only 7 patients experienced adverse outcomes; 6/7 also had SPDs. Only 1/9 patients with CT-FFR ≤ 0.80 but normal perfusion had an event. Fusion of CTCA and stress perfusion can help determine the hemodynamic impact of stenosis in one test, in good agreement with CT-FFR. Adding stress CT perfusion analysis may help risk-stratify patients with abnormal CT-FFR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CT:

Computed tomography

CTCA:

Computed tomography coronary angiography

CTP:

Computed tomography perfusion

FFR:

Fractional flow reserve

HU:

Hounsfeld units

LAD:

Left anterior descending

LCX:

Left circumflex

LV:

Left ventricular

MPI:

Myocardial perfusion imaging

RCA:

Right coronary artery

SPD:

Stress-induced perfusion defect

References

  1. Garcia MJ, Lessick J, Hoffmann MH, Investigators CS (2006) Accuracy of 16-row multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery stenosis. JAMA 296:403–411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 359:2324–2336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schroeder S, Achenbach S, Bengel F et al (2008) Cardiac computed tomography: indications, applications, limitations, and training requirements: report of a Writing Group deployed by the Working Group Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology. Eur Heart J 29:531–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K et al (1996) Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary–artery stenoses. N Engl J Med 334:1703–1708

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B et al (2010) Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:2816–2821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. George RT, Silva C, Cordeiro MA et al (2006) Multidetector computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging during adenosine stress. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:153–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ko BS, Cameron JD, Defrance T, Seneviratne SK (2011) CT stress myocardial perfusion imaging using multidetector CT—a review. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:345–356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Techasith T, Cury RC (2011) Stress myocardial CT perfusion: an update and future perspective. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 4:905–916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Blankstein R, Shturman LD, Rogers IS et al (2009) Adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging using dual-source cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:1072–1084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bastarrika G, Ramos-Duran L, Rosenblum MA, Kang DK, Rowe GW, Schoepf UJ (2010) Adenosine-stress dynamic myocardial CT perfusion imaging: initial clinical experience. Invest Radiol 45:306–313

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rocha-Filho JA, Blankstein R, Shturman LD et al (2010) Incremental value of adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging with dual-source CT at cardiac CT angiography. Radiology 254:410–419

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Bettencourt N, Rocha J, Ferreira N et al (2011) Incremental value of an integrated adenosine stress-rest MDCT perfusion protocol for detection of obstructive coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:392–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel AR, Lodato JA, Chandra S et al (2011) Detection of myocardial perfusion abnormalities using ultra-low radiation dose regadenoson stress multidetector computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:247–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ko BS, Cameron JD, Meredith IT et al (2012) Computed tomography stress myocardial perfusion imaging in patients considered for revascularization: a comparison with fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J 33:67–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Maffessanti F, Patel AR, Patel MB et al (2017) Non-invasive assessment of the haemodynamic significance of coronary stenosis using fusion of cardiac computed tomography and 3D echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 18:670–680

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Koo BK, Erglis A, Doh JH et al (2011) Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW (diagnosis of ischemia-causing stenoses obtained via noninvasive fractional flow reserve) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 58:1989–1997

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA 308:1237–1245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Nakazato R, Park HB, Berman DS et al (2013) Noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography angiography for coronary lesions of intermediate stenosis severity: results from the DeFACTO study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 6:881–889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Renker M, Schoepf UJ, Wang R et al (2014) Comparison of diagnostic value of a novel noninvasive coronary computed tomography angiography method versus standard coronary angiography for assessing fractional flow reserve. Am J Cardiol 114:1303–1308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Voros S, Rinehart S, Vazquez-Figueroa JG et al (2014) Prospective, head-to-head comparison of quantitative coronary angiography, quantitative computed tomography angiography, and intravascular ultrasound for the prediction of hemodynamic significance in intermediate and severe lesions, using fractional flow reserve as reference standard (from the ATLANTA I and II Study). Am J Cardiol 113:23–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Baumann S, Renker M, Hetjens S et al (2016) Comparison of coronary computed tomography angiography-derived vs invasive fractional flow reserve assessment: meta-analysis with subgroup evaluation of intermediate stenosis. Acad Radiol 23:1402–1411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gaur S, Ovrehus KA, Dey D et al (2016) Coronary plaque quantification and fractional flow reserve by coronary computed tomography angiography identify ischaemia-causing lesions. Eur Heart J 37:1220–1227

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Kawaji T, Shiomi H, Morishita H et al (2017) Feasibility and diagnostic performance of fractional flow reserve measurement derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in real clinical practice. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 33:271–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rabbat MG, Berman DS, Kern M et al (2017) Interpreting results of coronary computed tomography angiography-derived fractional flow reserve in clinical practice. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 11:383–3388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nieman K, Shapiro MD, Ferencik M et al (2008) Reperfused myocardial infarction: contrast-enhanced 64-Section CT in comparison to MR imaging. Radiology 247:49–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. So A, Hsieh J, Li JY, Hadway J, Kong HF, Lee TY (2012) Quantitative myocardial perfusion measurement using CT perfusion: a validation study in a porcine model of reperfused acute myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 28:1237–1248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nasis A, Ko BS, Leung MC et al (2013) Diagnostic accuracy of combined coronary angiography and adenosine stress myocardial perfusion imaging using 320-detector computed tomography: pilot study. Eur Radiol 23:1812–1821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kachenoura N, Veronesi F, Lodato JA et al (2010) Volumetric quantification of myocardial perfusion using analysis of multi-detector computed tomography 3D datasets: comparison with nuclear perfusion imaging. Eur Radiol 20:337–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mor-Avi V, Lodato JA, Kachenoura N et al (2012) Quantitative three-dimensional evaluation of myocardial perfusion during regadenoson stress using multidetector computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36:443–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Takx RA, Blomberg BA, El Aidi H et al (2015) Diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion imaging compared to invasive coronary angiography with fractional flow reserve meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 8:e002666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cury RC, Magalhaes TA, Borges AC et al (2010) Dipyridamole stress and rest myocardial perfusion by 64-detector row computed tomography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 106:310–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bamberg F, Klotz E, Flohr T et al (2010) Dynamic myocardial stress perfusion imaging using fast dual-source CT with alternating table positions: initial experience. Eur Radiol 20:1168–1173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Okada DR, Ghoshhajra BB, Blankstein R et al (2010) Direct comparison of rest and adenosine stress myocardial perfusion CT with rest and stress SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol 17:27–37

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Bettencourt N, Chiribiri A, Schuster A et al (2013) Direct comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance and multidetector computed tomography stress-rest perfusion imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 61:1099–1107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. George RT, Arbab-Zadeh A, Cerci RJ et al (2011) Diagnostic performance of combined noninvasive coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging using 320-MDCT: the CT angiography and perfusion methods of the CORE320 multicenter multinational diagnostic study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:829–837

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ko BS, Cameron JD, Leung M et al (2012) Combined CT coronary angiography and stress myocardial perfusion imaging for hemodynamically significant stenoses in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: a comparison with fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 5:1097–1111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Vavere AL, Simon GG, George RT et al (2011) Diagnostic performance of combined noninvasive coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging using 320 row detector computed tomography: design and implementation of the CORE320 multicenter, multinational diagnostic study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:370–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gaemperli O, Schepis T, Kalff V et al (2007) Validation of a new cardiac image fusion software for three-dimensional integration of myocardial perfusion SPECT and stand-alone 64-slice CT angiography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:1097–1106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nakaura T, Utsunomiya D, Shiraishi S et al (2005) Images in cardiovascular medicine. Fusion imaging between myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography and cardiac computed tomography. Circulation 112:e47–e48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tian J, Smith MF, Jeudy J, Dickfeld T (2009) Multimodality fusion imaging using delayed-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and real-time intracardiac echocardiography to guide ventricular tachycardia ablation in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients. Heart Rhythm 6:825–828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Stolzmann P, Alkadhi H, Scheffel H et al (2010) Image fusion of coronary CT angiography and cardiac perfusion MRI: a pilot study. Eur Radiol 20:1174–1179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Yoshikai M, Ikeda K, Itoh M, Ueno Y (2009) Cardiac fusion image from myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and 64-slice computed tomography before and after coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 35:1078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Donati OF, Alkadhi H, Scheffel H et al (2011) 3D fusion of functional cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography coronary angiography: accuracy and added clinical value. Invest Radiol 46:331–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Duckett SG, Ginks M, Shetty AK et al (2011) Realtime fusion of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography venography with X-ray fluoroscopy to aid cardiac resynchronisation therapy implantation in patients with persistent left superior vena cava. Europace 13:285–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Manka R, Kuhn FP, Kuest SM, Gaemperli O, Kozerke S, Kaufmann PA (2011) Hybrid cardiac magnetic resonance/computed tomographic imaging: first fusion of three-dimensional magnetic resonance perfusion and low-dose coronary computed tomographic angiography. Eur Heart J 32:2625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cook CM, Petraco R, Shun-Shin MJ et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve: a systematic review. JAMA Cardiol 2:803–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zorach B, Shaw PW, Bourque J et al (2018) Quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging identifies reduced flow reserve in microvascular coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 20:14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a research grant from Astellas Pharma Global Development (Grant No. REGA-13H05). Four of the coauthors (AN, AM, AS and KK) were supported by the NIH T32 Cardiovascular Sciences Training Grant (5T32HL7381). HeartFlow provided analyses for free. Dr. Patel and Dr. Lang have research support from Philips for other projects.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5758 South Maryland Avenue, M.C. 9067, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Amit R. Patel, Francesco Maffessanti, Mita B. Patel, Kalie Kebed, Akhil Narang, Amita Singh, Diego Medvedofsky, S. Javed Zaidi, Anuj Mediratta, Neha Goyal, Roberto M. Lang & Victor Mor-Avi

  2. Institute of Computational Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland

    Francesco Maffessanti

  3. Cardiology Department, Advocate Children’s Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA

    S. Javed Zaidi

  4. Laboratoire d’Imagerie Biomédicale, INSERM, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Nadjia Kachenoura

Authors
  1. Amit R. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco Maffessanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mita B. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kalie Kebed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Akhil Narang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Amita Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Diego Medvedofsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. S. Javed Zaidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Anuj Mediratta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Neha Goyal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Nadjia Kachenoura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Roberto M. Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Victor Mor-Avi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor Mor-Avi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board with a waiver of consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Video 1

Combined 3D display of the coronary arteries obtained from CT angiography and myocardial perfusion obtained by 3D analysis of subendocardial X-ray attenuation and color-encoded onto the end-diastolic endocardial surface, depicting normal, mostly uniform perfusion. This display lends itself to examination of perfusion in the territory of each artery, without the need to mentally reconcile these two types of information in the 3D space. (MOV 21643 kb)

Video 2

Combined 3D display of the coronary arteries and myocardial perfusion obtained in a patient with an intermediate grade stenosis, resulting in 50–60% luminal narrowing in the proximal LAD. A large perfusion abnormality encompassing the antero-septal and septal walls is depicted by the blue color. (MOV 20002 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patel, A.R., Maffessanti, F., Patel, M.B. et al. Hemodynamic impact of coronary stenosis using computed tomography: comparison between noninvasive fractional flow reserve and 3D fusion of coronary angiography with stress myocardial perfusion. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 35, 1733–1743 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01618-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-019-01618-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation