These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of machine learning-based CT fractional flow reserve with cardiac MR perfusion mapping for ischemia diagnosis in stable coronary artery disease.
    Author: Guo W, Zhao S, Xu H, He W, Yin L, Yao Z, Xu Z, Jin H, Wu D, Li C, Yang S, Zeng M.
    Journal: Eur Radiol; 2024 Sep; 34(9):5654-5665. PubMed ID: 38409549.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of machine learning (ML)-based computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) and cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) perfusion mapping for functional assessment of coronary stenosis. METHODS: Between October 2020 and March 2022, consecutive participants with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) were prospectively enrolled and underwent coronary CTA, cardiac MR, and invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) within 2 weeks. Cardiac MR perfusion analysis was quantified by stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR). Hemodynamically significant stenosis was defined as FFR ≤ 0.8 or > 90% stenosis on invasive coronary angiography (ICA). The diagnostic performance of CT-FFR, MBF, and MPR was compared, using invasive FFR as a reference. RESULTS: The study protocol was completed in 110 participants (mean age, 62 years ± 8; 73 men), and hemodynamically significant stenosis was detected in 36 (33%). Among the quantitative perfusion indices, MPR had the largest area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) (0.90) for identifying hemodynamically significant stenosis, which is in comparison with ML-based CT-FFR on the vessel level (AUC 0.89, p = 0.71), with comparable sensitivity (89% vs 79%, p = 0.20), specificity (87% vs 84%, p = 0.48), and accuracy (88% vs 83%, p = 0.24). However, MPR outperformed ML-based CT-FFR on the patient level (AUC 0.96 vs 0.86, p = 0.03), with improved specificity (95% vs 82%, p = 0.01) and accuracy (95% vs 81%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: ML-based CT-FFR and quantitative cardiac MR showed comparable diagnostic performance in detecting vessel-specific hemodynamically significant stenosis, whereas quantitative perfusion mapping had a favorable performance in per-patient analysis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: ML-based CT-FFR and MPR derived from cardiac MR performed well in diagnosing vessel-specific hemodynamically significant stenosis, both of which showed no statistical discrepancy with each other. KEY POINTS: • Both machine learning (ML)-based computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) and quantitative perfusion cardiac MR performed well in the detection of hemodynamically significant stenosis. • Compared with stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) from quantitative perfusion cardiac MR, myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) provided higher diagnostic performance for detecting hemodynamically significant coronary artery stenosis. • ML-based CT-FFR and MPR from quantitative cardiac MR perfusion yielded similar diagnostic performance in assessing vessel-specific hemodynamically significant stenosis, whereas MPR had a favorable performance in per-patient analysis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]