Korean Circulation Journal

The Korean Society of Cardiology (대한심장학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Physiologic Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease by Cardiac Computed Tomography

  • Kochar, Minisha (Division of Cardiology, Kaiser Permanente) ;
  • Min, James K. (Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center)
  • Published : 2013.07.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains the leading cause of death and morbidity worldwide. To date, diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected CAD has relied upon the use of physiologic non-invasive testing by stress electrocardiography, echocardiography, myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and magnetic resonance imaging. Indeed, the importance of physiologic evaluation of CAD has been highlighted by large-scale randomized trials that demonstrate the propitious benefit of an integrated anatomic-physiologic evaluation method by performing lesion-specific ischemia assessment by fractional flow reserve (FFR)-widely considered the "gold" standard for ischemia assessment-at the time of invasive angiography. Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) has emerged as an attractive non-invasive test for anatomic illustration of the coronary arteries and atherosclerotic plaque. In a series of prospective multicenter trials, CCTA has been proven as having high diagnostic performance for stenosis detection as compared to invasive angiography. Nevertheless, CCTA evaluation of obstructive stenoses is prone to overestimation of severity and further, detection of stenoses by CCTA does not reliably determine the hemodynamic significance of the visualized lesions. Recently, a series of technological innovations have advanced the possibility of CCTA to enable physiologic evaluation of CAD, thereby creating the potential of this test to provide an integrated anatomic-physiologic assessment of CAD. These advances include rest-stress MPI by CCTA as well as the use of computational fluid dynamics to non-invasively calculate FFR from a typically acquired CCTA. The purpose of this review is to summarize the most recent data addressing these 2 physiologic methods of CAD evaluation by CCTA.

Keywords

References

  1. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-- 2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2011;123:e18-209. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182009701
  2. Heidenreich PA, Trogdon JG, Khavjou OA, et al. Forecasting the future of cardiovascular disease in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2011;123:933-44. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e31820a55f5
  3. Fischer JJ, Samady H, McPherson JA, et al. Comparison between visual assessment and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary narrowings of moderate severity. Am J Cardiol 2002;90:210-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02456-6
  4. Topol EJ, Nissen SE. Our preoccupation with coronary luminology. The dissociation between clinical and angiographic findings in ischemic heart disease. Circulation 1995;92:2333-42. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.92.8.2333
  5. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med 2010;362:886-95. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0907272
  6. Min JK, Shaw LJ, Berman DS. The present state of coronary computed tomography angiography a process in evolution. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55:957-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.08.087
  7. Pugliese F, Mollet NR, Runza G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive 64-slice CT coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris. Eur Radiol 2006;16:575-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-0041-0
  8. Raff GL, Gallagher MJ, O'Neill WW, Goldstein JA. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive coronary angiography using 64-slice spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:552-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.05.056
  9. Schuijf JD, Pundziute G, Jukema JW, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice multislice computed tomography in the noninvasive evaluation of significant coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 2006;98:145-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.01.092
  10. Ropers D, Rixe J, Anders K, et al. Usefulness of multidetector row spiral computed tomography with 64-x0.6-mm collimation and 330-ms rotation for the noninvasive detection of significant coronary artery stenoses. Am J Cardiol 2006;97:343-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.08.050
  11. Ehara M, Surmely JF, Kawai M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography for detecting angiographically significant coronary artery stenosis in an unselected consecutive patient population: comparison with conventional invasive angiography. Circ J 2006;70:564-71. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.70.564
  12. Nikolaou K, Knez A, Rist C, et al. Accuracy of 64-MDCT in the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:111-7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.1697
  13. Hamon M, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Malagutti P, et al. Diagnostic performance of multislice spiral computed tomography of coronary arteries as compared with conventional invasive coronary angiography: a meta- analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1896-910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2006.08.028
  14. Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA 2012;308:1237-45. https://doi.org/10.1001/2012.jama.11274
  15. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2324-36. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0806576
  16. Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:2135-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.058
  17. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:1724-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.031
  18. Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, et al. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease. Health Technol Assess 2008;12:iii-iv, ix-143.
  19. Meijboom WB, Van Mieghem CA, van Pelt N, et al. Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses: computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography and correlation with fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:636-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.024
  20. Glagov S, Bassiouny HS, Sakaguchi Y, Goudet CA, Vito RP. Mechanical determinants of plaque modeling, remodeling and disruption. Atherosclerosis 1997;131 Suppl:S13-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9150(97)06117-0
  21. Glagov S, Weisenberg E, Zarins CK, Stankunavicius R, Kolettis GJ. Compensatory enlargement of human atherosclerotic coronary arteries. N Engl J Med 1987;316:1371-5. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198705283162204
  22. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009;360:213-24. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0807611
  23. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B. Coronary pressure measurement and fractional flow reserve. Heart 1998;80:539-42. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.80.6.539
  24. Elhendy A, Schinkel AF, Bax JJ, et al. Accuracy of stress Tc-99m tetrofosmin myocardial perfusion tomography for the diagnosis and localization of coronary artery disease in women. J Nucl Cardiol 2006; 13:629-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2006.06.128
  25. Melikian N, De Bondt P, Tonino P, et al. Fractional flow reserve and myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with angiographic multivessel coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3:307-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2009.12.010
  26. De Bruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA, et al. Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in humans. Validation with positron emission tomography. Circulation 1994;89:1013-22. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.89.3.1013
  27. Berger A, Botman KJ, MacCarthy PA, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46: 438-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.04.041
  28. Pijls NH, van Son JA, Kirkeeide RL, De Bruyne B, Gould KL. Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing functional stenosis severity before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1993;87:1354-67. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.87.4.1354
  29. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2012;367:991-1001. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1205361
  30. Koo BK, Erglis A, Doh JH, et al. 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 2011;58:1989-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.06.066
  31. Kim HJ, Vignon-Clementel IE, Coogan JS, Figueroa CA, Jansen KE, Taylor CA. Patient-specific modeling of blood flow and pressure in human coronary arteries. Ann Biomed Eng 2010;38:3195-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-010-0083-6
  32. Kim HJ, Jansen KE, Taylor CA. Incorporating autoregulatory mechanisms of the cardiovascular system in three-dimensional finite element models of arterial blood flow. Ann Biomed Eng 2010;38:2314-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-010-9992-7
  33. Kim HJ, Vignon-Clementel IE, Figueroa CA, et al. On coupling a lumped parameter heart model and a three-dimensional finite element aorta model. Ann Biomed Eng 2009;37:2153-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-009-9760-8
  34. Vignon-Clementel IE, Figueroa CA, Jansen KE, Taylor CA. Outflow boundary conditions for 3D simulations of non-periodic blood flow and pressure fields in deformable arteries. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2010;13:625-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255840903413565
  35. Fearon WF, Bornschein B, Tonino PA, et al. Economic evaluation of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease. Circulation 2010;122:2545-50. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.925396
  36. Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:177-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.04.012
  37. Wolfkiel CJ, Ferguson JL, Chomka EV, et al. Measurement of myocardial blood flow by ultrafast computed tomography. Circulation 1987;76:1262-73. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.76.6.1262
  38. George RT, Arbab-Zadeh A, Miller JM, et al. Adenosine stress 64- and 256-row detector computed tomography angiography and perfusion imaging: a pilot study evaluating the transmural extent of perfusion abnormalities to predict atherosclerosis causing myocardial ischemia. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;2:174-82. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.108.813766
  39. So A, Lee TY. Quantitative myocardial CT perfusion: a pictorial review and the current state of technology development. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011;5:467-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2011.11.002
  40. Feuchtner GM, Plank F, Pena C, et al. Evaluation of myocardial CT perfusion in patients presenting with acute chest pain to the emergency department: comparison with SPECT-myocardial perfusion imaging. Heart 2012;98:1510-7. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302531
  41. So A, Hsieh J, Narayanan S, et al. Dual-energy CT and its potential use for quantitative myocardial CT perfusion. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2012;6:308-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2012.07.002
  42. Blankstein R, Shturman LD, Rogers IS, et al. Adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging using dual-source cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1072-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.06.014
  43. Feuchtner G, Goetti R, Plass A, et al. Adenosine stress high-pitch 128-slice dual-source myocardial computed tomography perfusion for imaging of reversible myocardial ischemia: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:540-9. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.110.961250
  44. Rocha-Filho JA, Blankstein R, Shturman LD, et al. Incremental value of adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging with dualsource CT at cardiac CT angiography. Radiology 2010;254:410-9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09091014
  45. Williams MC, Newby DE. CT myocardial perfusion: a step towards quantification. Heart 2012;98:521-2. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2012-301677

Cited by

  1. Direct comparison of stress- and rest-dual-energy computed tomography for detection of myocardial perfusion defect vol.30, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-014-0410-3
  2. The Present and Future of Fractional Flow Reserve vol.78, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.cj-14-0249
  3. Noninvasive Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease: Fractional Flow Reserved Derived from Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (FFRCT) vol.1, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1515/jim-2016-0030
  4. Color-coded duplex sonography vs. 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance angiography for detection of intracranial stenosis of the internal carotid artery: A prospective cohort study vol.19, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.8255