Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic CT perfusion and cardiac CMR with quantitative perfusion: a subanalysis of ADVANTAGE II study

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background The ADVANTAGE II study has evaluated the performance of dynamic myocardial perfusion assessed by CT (CTP) in stented patient using ICA and in particular invasive coronary physiology (FFR and IMR) as gold-standard. Recently, quantitative myocardial blood flow (MBF) analysis using stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has been showed to detect obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). In a substudy of ADVANTAGE II we aimed to evaluate the performance of quantitative stress CMR in comparison to CTP. Methods We present data from 39 subjects with clinically indicated ICA who underwent both vasodilator stress CMR using 1.5T MR scanner (General Electric) and dynamic stress myocardial CTP using a last generation scanner characterized by a 16-cm Z-axis coverage. In CMR Quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging was performed using the dual sequence technique (i.e. low-resolution slice for arterial input function and 2–3 short axis slices for myocardial perfusion). Resting MBF (rMBF), Stress MBF (sMBF), and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) were measured using Fermi deconvolution (Circle Cvi42). Quantitative perfusion results were displayed on color-encoded pixel-wise maps and on a 16-segment plot with segmental values listed. Results When FFR was used as gold standard the diagnostic accuracy of CTP was higher than those of CCTA (84.7% vs. 61.5%, p<0.001). When IMR was used as gold standard, diagnostic accuracy of CTP was higher than CCTA (82.9% vs. 59.3%, p<0.01, respectively). When the presence of at least one abnormal physiological parameter among FFR and IMR was used as gold standard, the diagnostic accuracy of CTP was higher than that of CCTA (90.8%vs 68%). Quantitative stress CMR using 2.2 ml/min/g as cut-off has a sensitivity of 83.3%, 77.7% and 100% vs QCA, FFR and IMR, respectively with higher performance of dynamic CTP in comparison to quantitative stress CMR. Conclusions In this substudy of ADVANTAGE II, we showed that global sMBF in MRI can accurately identify patients with CAD. Dynamic CTP seems to offer higher value of diagnostic performance in comparison to quantitative CMR that seems to be very promising, but more data are needed.