The natural history of napkin-ring sign by coronary computed tomography angiography.

INTRODUCTION: Despite their significance, the prevalence and the incidence of vulnerable plaques in coronary arteries, as well as their natural history, remain poorly known. AIM: To evaluate the prevalence, incidence and evolution of napkin-ring sign (NRS), and to establish factors associated with its presence, progression, or regression, in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study is based on a single-center prospective registry. Eighty-nine patients with suspected CAD underwent two computed tomography angiography (CTA) examinations within an interval of at least 24 months. High-risk plaque was defined by the presence of a low-attenuation area adjacent to the coronary lumen, surrounded by a ring of higher attenuation - NRS. RESULTS: At the baseline 53 NRS were observed in 22 (25%) patients, 7 (8%) patients had single NRS and 15 (17%) had multiple NRS. After the follow-up period, there were 68 NRS in 32 patients. In 18 patients progression was observed with 23 additional NRS. Presence of single NRS and diabetes were independent predictors of NRS progression. CONCLUSIONS: The number of NRS plaque tends to increase over time in patients with suspected CAD. The progression may be predicted by the presence of diabetes or single NRS.

Coronary CTA enhanced with CTA based FFR analysis provides higher diagnostic value than invasive coronary angiography in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis.

BACKGROUND: CTA based FFR, a software based application, enhances diagnostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) examination. However it remains unknown whether it improves accuracy over the gold standard of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in predicting functionally significant coronary stenosis. The aim of our study was to compare diagnostic accuracies of coronary CTA, CTA based FFR, and ICA, with invasive FFR as the reference standard in patients with intermediate stenosis on CTA. METHODS: 96 intermediate stenoses (50-90%) from 90 subjects, with intermediate pre-test probability of CAD, who underwent coronary CTA were analyzed. Each patient had subsequent ICA with FFR. CTA based FFR (cFFR v2.1, Siemens) analysis was performed on-site. The stenoses with invasive FFR≤0.8 were considered hemodynamically significant. RESULTS: 41/96 stenoses were hemodynamically significant (FFR≤0.8). While the area under ROC curves (AUC) for identification of significant stenosis evaluated on QCA (0.653), visual ICA (0.652), qCTA (0.690) and visual CTA (0.660) did not significantly differ, the AUC for CTA based FFR (0.835) was significantly higher (p = 0.004, p = 0.004, p = 0.010, p = 0.007, respectively). The accuracies of CTA based FFR, qCTA and QCA were 76%, 63% and 58% respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that diagnostic potential of routine coronary CTA, augmented with CTA based FFR analysis, is superior to ICA in patients with intermediate stenosis.

Workstation-Based Calculation of CTA-Based FFR for Intermediate Stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the proportion of patients with intermediate coronary stenosis diagnosed on computed tomography angiography (CTA), which may be saved from any further testing due to use of CTA-based fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND: Coronary CTA often results in diagnosis of intermediate stenosis, triggering further physiological testing. CTA-based FFR (CTA-FFR) is a promising diagnostic tool, which may obviate the need for further testing. However, the specific thresholds for CTA-FFR values predicting ischemic versus nonischemic FFR with acceptable confidence are unknown, obscuring clinical utility of the diagnostic strategy using CTA-FFR. METHODS: We analyzed 96 lesions (mean CTA stenosis: 69.7 ± 11.7%) in 90 patients (63.4 ± 8.2 years, 32% were men) who underwent CTA for suspected CAD and were diagnosed with at least 1 intermediate coronary stenosis (50% to 90%) scheduled for further physiological testing. All patients underwent routine invasive FFR and CTA-FFR evaluation. The objective was to determine the proportion of patients falling between the lower and upper CTA-FFR thresholds that predict ischemic and nonischemic stenosis, respectively (on the basis of an invasive FFR cutpoint of ≤0.80), with ≥90% accuracy. RESULTS: The invasive FFR ≤0.8 was observed in 41 of 96 lesions (42.7%). According to Bland-Altman analysis, the CTA-FFR underestimated FFR by 0.01 and the 95% limits of agreement were ±0.19. Receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve was significantly higher for CTA-FFR than that for CTA (per lesion 0.835 vs. 0.660, respectively; p = 0.007). The CTA-FFR thresholds for which the positive and negative predictive values were each ≥90% (corresponding to an FFR of ≤0.80) were >0.87 or <0.74, respectively, encompassing 49 lesions (51%) and 45 of 90 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In around one-half of the patients diagnosed with intermediate stenosis, coronary CTA-based FFR may confidently discriminate between ischemic versus nonischemic stenoses. Our findings require validation in an independent cohort.