Advertisement

Correlation of FFR-derived from CT and stress perfusion CMR with invasive FFR in intermediate-grade coronary artery stenosis

  • Olivier GhekiereEmail author
  • Jurgen Bielen
  • Jonathon Leipsic
  • Willem Dewilde
  • Isabelle Mancini
  • Dominic Hansen
  • Paul Dendale
  • Alain Nchimi
Original Paper

Abstract

Only one-third of intermediate-grade coronary artery stenosis (i.e. 40–70% diameter narrowing) causes myocardial ischemia, requiring most often additional invasive work-up with invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). To evaluate the correlations between FFR estimates derived from computed tomography (FFRCT) and adenosine perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) with invasive FFR in intermediate-grade stenosis. Thirty-seven patients (mean age 61 ± 9 years; 25 men) who underwent adenosine perfusion CMR, quantitative coronary angiography and FFR in the work-up for intermediate-grade stenoses (n = 39) diagnosed at coronary CT angiography were retrospectively evaluated. Blinded FFRCT analysis was computed on each intermediate-grade lesion and correlated to the FFR values. On adenosine CMR, subendocardial time-enhancement maximal upslopes, normalized by respective left ventricle cavity upslopes, were obtained distal to a coronary stenosis (RISK area) and in remote myocardium (REMOTE area). The perfusion was subsequently assessed without (uncorrected RISK) and after correction for remote perfusion (relative myocardial perfusion index = REMOTE/RISK ratio), and then correlated to the FFR values. Differences in correlations were tested with z statistics and considered statistically significant different at a p < 0.05 level. The average FFR value was 0.85 ± 0.10 (0.60–0.98 range), 28% (n = 11) was ≤ 0.80. FFR value correlated poorly with uncorrected RISK upslopes (r = 0.151; p = 0.36), but equally strongly with FFRCT (r = 0.675; p < 0.001) and the relative myocardial perfusion index (r = − 0.63) (p < 0.001; z = 6.72) for assessment of lesion-specific ischemia. Both FFRCT and adenosine perfusion CMR strongly correlate with invasive FFR measurements for intermediate-grade stenosis. These preliminary findings pave the way for further studies evaluating non-invasively intermediate coronary stenosis in clinical practice.

Keywords

Coronary stenosis Fractional flow reserve Myocardial Adenosine Magnetic resonance imaging Computed tomography angiography 

Abbreviations

FFR

Fractional flow reserve

FFRCT

FFR estimates derived from computed tomography

CMR

Cardiac magnetic resonance

CTA

Computed tomography angiography

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Bracco imaging and General Electrics Healthcare for the study support.

Funding

This study has received funding by General Electrics Healthcare. The funding has been used to cover the costs of the adenosine perfusion MR, the contrast medium and adenosine of all included patients. Funding for the FFRCT analysis was received by Bracco imaging.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Jonathon Leipsic: Grant/Research Support: Edwards Lifesciences, Neovasc, Tendyne, HeartFlow, Samsung; Consultant: Circle CVI, Edwards, HeartFlow, Samsung; Stock Options: Arineta, Pi Cardia. The other authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Statistics

One of the authors, Dominique Hansen, has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ghekiere O, Dewilde W, Bellekens M et al (2015) Diagnostic performance of quantitative coronary computed tomography angiography and quantitative coronary angiography to predict hemodynamic significance of intermediate-grade stenoses. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 31:1651–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Budoff MJ, Nakazato R, Mancini GB et al (2016) CT angiography for the prediction of hemodynamic significance in intermediate and severe lesions: head-to-head comparison with quantitative coronary Angiography using fractional flow reserve as the reference standard. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 9:559–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Toth GG, Toth B, Johnson NP et al (2014) Revascularization decisions in patients with stable angina and intermediate lesions: results of the international survey on interventional strategy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 7:751–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tobis J, Azarbal B, Slavin L (2007) Assessment of intermediate severity coronary lesions in the catheterization laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:839–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zimmermann FM, Ferrara A, Johnson NP et al (2015) Deferral vs. performance of percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally non-significant coronary stenosis: 15-year follow-up of the DEFER trial. Eur Heart J 36:3182–3188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moschetti K, Favre D, Pinget C et al (2014) Comparative cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and coronary angiography combined with fractional flow reserve for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 16:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Norgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S et al (2014) Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (analysis of coronary blood flow using CT angiography: next steps). J Am Coll Cardiol 63:1145–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 6:881–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Min JK, Taylor CA, Achenbach S et al (2015) Noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary CT angiography: clinical data and scientific principles. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 8:1209–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schuster A, Zarinabad N, Ishida M et al (2014) Quantitative assessment of magnetic resonance derived myocardial perfusion measurements using advanced techniques: microsphere validation in an explanted pig heart system. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 16:82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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:e002666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li M, Zhou T, Yang LF, Peng ZH, Ding J, Sun G (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial magnetic resonance perfusion to diagnose ischemic stenosis with fractional flow reserve as reference: systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 7:1098–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halliburton SS, Abbara S, Chen MY et al (2011) SCCT guidelines on radiation dose and dose-optimization strategies in cardiovascular CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:198–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Smith PK, Spertus JA, ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization (2009) A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology: Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Circulation 119:1330–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH et al (2009) Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 360:213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tarroni G, Corsi C, Antkowiak PF et al (2012) Myocardial perfusion: near-automated evaluation from contrast-enhanced MR images obtained at rest and during vasodilator stress. Radiology 265:576–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Bruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA et al (1994) Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in humans. Validation with positron emission tomography. Circulation 89:1013–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klocke FJ, Simonetti OP, Judd RM et al (2001) Limits of detection of regional differences in vasodilated flow in viable myocardium by first-pass magnetic resonance perfusion imaging. Circulation 104:2412–2416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee JM, Kim CH, Koo BK et al (2016) Integrated myocardial perfusion imaging diagnostics improve detection of functionally significant coronary artery stenosis by 13N-ammonia positron emission tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 9:e004768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stuijfzand WJ, Uusitalo V, Kero T et al (2015) Relative flow reserve derived from quantitative perfusion imaging may not outperform stress myocardial blood flow for identification of hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 8:e002400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coelho-Filho OR, Rickers C, Kwong RY, Jerosch-Herold M (2013) MR myocardial perfusion imaging. Radiology 266:701–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rieber J, Huber A, Erhard I et al (2006) Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease: a comparison with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J 27:1465–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kuhl HP, Katoh M, Buhr C et al (2007) Comparison of magnetic resonance perfusion imaging versus invasive fractional flow reserve for assessment of the hemodynamic significance of epicardial coronary artery stenosis. Am J Cardiol 99:1090–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kirschbaum SW, Springeling T, Rossi A et al (2011) Comparison of adenosine magnetic resonance perfusion imaging with invasive coronary flow reserve and fractional flow reserve in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiol 147:184–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lockie T, Ishida M, Perera D et al (2011) High-resolution magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging at 3.0-Tesla to detect hemodynamically significant coronary stenoses as determined by fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol 57:70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Min JK, Koo BK, Erglis A et al (2012) Usefulness of noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms for intermediate stenoses confirmed by quantitative coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol 110:971–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taylor CA, Fonte TA, Min JK (2013) Computational fluid dynamics applied to cardiac computed tomography for noninvasive quantification of fractional flow reserve: scientific basis. J Am Coll Cardiol 61:2233–2241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnson NP, Toth GG, Lai D et al (2014) Prognostic value of fractional flow reserve: linking physiologic severity to clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 64:1641–1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gould KL, Johnson NP, Kaul S et al (2015) Patient selection for elective revascularization to reduce myocardial infarction and mortality: new lessons from randomized trials, coronary physiology, and statistics. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 8:e003099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park JY, Lerman A, Herrmann J (2017) Use of fractional flow reserve in patients with coronary artery disease: the right choice for the right outcome. Trends Cardiovasc Med 27:106–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivier Ghekiere
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Jurgen Bielen
    • 2
  • Jonathon Leipsic
    • 4
  • Willem Dewilde
    • 5
  • Isabelle Mancini
    • 1
  • Dominic Hansen
    • 3
  • Paul Dendale
    • 3
    • 6
  • Alain Nchimi
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCentre Hospitalier Chrétien (CHC)LiègeBelgium
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyJessa ZiekenhuisHasseltBelgium
  3. 3.Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Biomed and RevalHasselt UniversityHasseltBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Radiology, St Paul’s HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  5. 5.Department of CardiologyImelda HospitalBonheidenBelgium
  6. 6.Heart Center HasseltJessa ZiekenhuisHasseltBelgium
  7. 7.Centre Hospitalier de LuxembourgLuxembourg CityLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations