Accuracy of 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography for predicting physiological significance of coronary stenosis: a FAVOR II substudy

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Standard

Accuracy of 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography for predicting physiological significance of coronary stenosis : a FAVOR II substudy. / Ding, Daixin; Yang, Junqing; Westra, Jelmer; Chen, Yundai; Chang, Yunxiao; Sejr-Hansen, Martin; Zhang, Su; Christiansen, Evald H; Holm, Niels R; Xu, Bo; Tu, Shengxian.

I: Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, Bind 9, Nr. 5, 10.2019, s. 481-491.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Ding, Daixin ; Yang, Junqing ; Westra, Jelmer ; Chen, Yundai ; Chang, Yunxiao ; Sejr-Hansen, Martin ; Zhang, Su ; Christiansen, Evald H ; Holm, Niels R ; Xu, Bo ; Tu, Shengxian. / Accuracy of 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography for predicting physiological significance of coronary stenosis : a FAVOR II substudy. I: Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy. 2019 ; Bind 9, Nr. 5. s. 481-491.

Bibtex

@article{afd9a2dc9f5c4fb78ecf663ae6694991,
title = "Accuracy of 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography for predicting physiological significance of coronary stenosis: a FAVOR II substudy",
abstract = "Background: Three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) enables reconstruction of a coronary artery in 3D from two angiographic image projections. This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-QCA vs. 2-dimensional (2D) QCA in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis, using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard.Methods: All interrogated vessels in the FAVOR II China study and the FAVOR II Europe-Japan study were assessed by 2D-QCA and 3D-QCA according to standard operating procedures in core laboratories. QCA analysts were blinded to the corresponding FFR values.Results: A total of 645 vessels from 576 patients with 3D-QCA, 2D-QCA, and FFR were analyzed. Using the conventional cut-off value of 50% for percent diameter stenosis (DS%), 3D-QCA was more accurate in predicting FFR ≤0.80 than 2D-QCA [accuracy 74.0% (95% CI: 69.9-77.7%) vs. 64.9% (95% CI: 61.3-68.7%), difference: 9.1%, P<0.001]. Sensitivity was higher by 3D-QCA compared with 2D-QCA [69.1% (95% CI: 63.0-75.1%) vs. 47.1% (95% CI: 40.5-53.6%), difference: 22.0%, P<0.001] and specificity was similar [76.5% (95% CI: 72.5-80.6%) vs. 74.4% (95% CI: 70.2-78.6%), difference: 2.1%, P=0.40]. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly higher for 3D-QCA than for 2D-QCA [0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84) vs. 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.71), P<0.001].Conclusions: 3D-QCA demonstrated better diagnostic performance in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis compared with 2D-QCA, when FFR was used as the reference standard.",
author = "Daixin Ding and Junqing Yang and Jelmer Westra and Yundai Chen and Yunxiao Chang and Martin Sejr-Hansen and Su Zhang and Christiansen, {Evald H} and Holm, {Niels R} and Bo Xu and Shengxian Tu",
note = "2019 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.",
year = "2019",
month = oct,
doi = "10.21037/cdt.2019.09.07",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "481--491",
journal = "Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy",
issn = "2223-3652",
publisher = "AME Publishing Company",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy of 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography for predicting physiological significance of coronary stenosis

T2 - a FAVOR II substudy

AU - Ding, Daixin

AU - Yang, Junqing

AU - Westra, Jelmer

AU - Chen, Yundai

AU - Chang, Yunxiao

AU - Sejr-Hansen, Martin

AU - Zhang, Su

AU - Christiansen, Evald H

AU - Holm, Niels R

AU - Xu, Bo

AU - Tu, Shengxian

N1 - 2019 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.

PY - 2019/10

Y1 - 2019/10

N2 - Background: Three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) enables reconstruction of a coronary artery in 3D from two angiographic image projections. This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-QCA vs. 2-dimensional (2D) QCA in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis, using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard.Methods: All interrogated vessels in the FAVOR II China study and the FAVOR II Europe-Japan study were assessed by 2D-QCA and 3D-QCA according to standard operating procedures in core laboratories. QCA analysts were blinded to the corresponding FFR values.Results: A total of 645 vessels from 576 patients with 3D-QCA, 2D-QCA, and FFR were analyzed. Using the conventional cut-off value of 50% for percent diameter stenosis (DS%), 3D-QCA was more accurate in predicting FFR ≤0.80 than 2D-QCA [accuracy 74.0% (95% CI: 69.9-77.7%) vs. 64.9% (95% CI: 61.3-68.7%), difference: 9.1%, P<0.001]. Sensitivity was higher by 3D-QCA compared with 2D-QCA [69.1% (95% CI: 63.0-75.1%) vs. 47.1% (95% CI: 40.5-53.6%), difference: 22.0%, P<0.001] and specificity was similar [76.5% (95% CI: 72.5-80.6%) vs. 74.4% (95% CI: 70.2-78.6%), difference: 2.1%, P=0.40]. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly higher for 3D-QCA than for 2D-QCA [0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84) vs. 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.71), P<0.001].Conclusions: 3D-QCA demonstrated better diagnostic performance in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis compared with 2D-QCA, when FFR was used as the reference standard.

AB - Background: Three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) enables reconstruction of a coronary artery in 3D from two angiographic image projections. This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-QCA vs. 2-dimensional (2D) QCA in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis, using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard.Methods: All interrogated vessels in the FAVOR II China study and the FAVOR II Europe-Japan study were assessed by 2D-QCA and 3D-QCA according to standard operating procedures in core laboratories. QCA analysts were blinded to the corresponding FFR values.Results: A total of 645 vessels from 576 patients with 3D-QCA, 2D-QCA, and FFR were analyzed. Using the conventional cut-off value of 50% for percent diameter stenosis (DS%), 3D-QCA was more accurate in predicting FFR ≤0.80 than 2D-QCA [accuracy 74.0% (95% CI: 69.9-77.7%) vs. 64.9% (95% CI: 61.3-68.7%), difference: 9.1%, P<0.001]. Sensitivity was higher by 3D-QCA compared with 2D-QCA [69.1% (95% CI: 63.0-75.1%) vs. 47.1% (95% CI: 40.5-53.6%), difference: 22.0%, P<0.001] and specificity was similar [76.5% (95% CI: 72.5-80.6%) vs. 74.4% (95% CI: 70.2-78.6%), difference: 2.1%, P=0.40]. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly higher for 3D-QCA than for 2D-QCA [0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84) vs. 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.71), P<0.001].Conclusions: 3D-QCA demonstrated better diagnostic performance in predicting physiologically significant coronary stenosis compared with 2D-QCA, when FFR was used as the reference standard.

U2 - 10.21037/cdt.2019.09.07

DO - 10.21037/cdt.2019.09.07

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 31737519

VL - 9

SP - 481

EP - 491

JO - Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy

JF - Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy

SN - 2223-3652

IS - 5

ER -