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

  • Amit R. Patel
  • Francesco Maffessanti
  • Mita B. Patel
  • Kalie Kebed
  • Akhil Narang
  • Amita Singh
  • Diego Medvedofsky
  • S. Javed Zaidi
  • Anuj Mediratta
  • Neha Goyal
  • Nadjia Kachenoura
  • Roberto M. Lang
  • Victor Mor-AviEmail author
Original Paper


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.


Fusion imaging Cardiovascular CT Vasodilator stress Myocardial perfusion 



Computed tomography


Computed tomography coronary angiography


Computed tomography perfusion


Fractional flow reserve


Hounsfeld units


Left anterior descending


Left circumflex


Left ventricular


Myocardial perfusion imaging


Right coronary artery


Stress-induced perfusion defect



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.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

Supplementary material (21.1 mb)
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) (19.5 mb)
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)


  1. 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 296:403–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 359:2324–2336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 29:531–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 334:1703–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 55:2816–2821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    George RT, Silva C, Cordeiro MA et al (2006) Multidetector computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging during adenosine stress. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ko BS, Cameron JD, Defrance T, Seneviratne SK (2011) CT stress myocardial perfusion imaging using multidetector CT—a review. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 5:345–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Techasith T, Cury RC (2011) Stress myocardial CT perfusion: an update and future perspective. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 4:905–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 54:1072–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 45:306–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 254:410–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 5:392–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 5:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 33:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 18:670–680Google Scholar
  16. 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 58:1989–1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA 308:1237–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 6:881–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 114:1303–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 113:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 23:1402–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 37:1220–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 33:271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 11:383–3388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nieman K, Shapiro MD, Ferencik M et al (2008) Reperfused myocardial infarction: contrast-enhanced 64-Section CT in comparison to MR imaging. Radiology 247:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 28:1237–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 23:1812–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 20:337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 36:443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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:e002666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 106:310–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 20:1168–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 17:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 61:1099–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 197:829–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 5:1097–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 5:370–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 34:1097–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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–e48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 6:825–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 20:1174–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 35:1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 46:331–340Google Scholar
  44. 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 13:285–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 32:2625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 2:803–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 20:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amit R. Patel
    • 1
  • Francesco Maffessanti
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mita B. Patel
    • 1
  • Kalie Kebed
    • 1
  • Akhil Narang
    • 1
  • Amita Singh
    • 1
  • Diego Medvedofsky
    • 1
  • S. Javed Zaidi
    • 1
    • 3
  • Anuj Mediratta
    • 1
  • Neha Goyal
    • 1
  • Nadjia Kachenoura
    • 4
  • Roberto M. Lang
    • 1
  • Victor Mor-Avi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Section of CardiologyUniversity of Chicago Medical CenterChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Computational SciencesUniversità della Svizzera ItalianaLuganoSwitzerland
  3. 3.Cardiology DepartmentAdvocate Children’s HospitalChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Laboratoire d’Imagerie Biomédicale, INSERM, CNRSSorbonne UniversitéParisFrance

Personalised recommendations