Stress Myocardial Perfusion Imaging vs Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Diagnosis of Invasive Vessel-Specific Coronary Physiology

Abstract

Stress imaging has been the standard for diagnosing functionally significant coronary artery disease. It is unknown whether novel, atherosclerotic plaque measures improve accuracy beyond coronary stenosis for diagnosing invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement. To compare the diagnostic accuracy of comprehensive anatomic (obstructive and nonobstructive atherosclerotic plaque) vs functional imaging measures for estimating vessel-specific FFR. Controlled clinical trial of diagnostic accuracy with a multicenter derivation-validation cohort of patients referred for nonemergent invasive coronary angiography. A total of 612 patients (64 [10] years; 30% women) with signs and symptoms suggestive of myocardial ischemia from 23 sites were included. Patients were recruited from 2014 to 2017. Data analysis began in August 2018. Patients underwent invasive coronary angiography with measurement of invasive FFR, coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) quantification of atherosclerotic plaque and FFR by CT (FFR-CT), and semiquantitative scoring of rest/stress myocardial perfusion imaging (by magnetic resonance, positron emission tomography, or single photon emission CT). Multivariable generalized linear mixed models were derived and validated calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve. The primary end point was invasive FFR of 0.80 or less. Of the 612 patients, the mean (SD) age was 64 (10) years, and 426 (69.9%) were men. An invasive FFR of 0.80 or less was measured in 26.5% of 1727 vessels. In the derivation cohort, CCTA vessel-specific factors associated with FFR 0.80 or less were stenosis severity, percentage of noncalcified atheroma volume, lumen volume, the number of lesions with high-risk plaque (≥2 of low attenuation plaque, positive remodeling, napkin ring sign, or spotty calcification), and the number of lesions with stenosis greater than 30%. Fractional flow reserve-CT was not additive to this model including stenosis and atherosclerotic plaque. Significant myocardial perfusion imaging predictors were the summed rest and difference scores. In the validation cohort, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.81 for CCTA vs 0.67 for myocardial perfusion imaging (P < .001). A comprehensive anatomic interpretation with CCTA, including quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive atherosclerotic plaque, was superior to functional imaging in the diagnosis of invasive FFR. Comprehensive CCTA measures improve prediction of vessel-specific coronary physiology more so than stress-induced alterations in myocardial perfusion. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02173275.