The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography, Fractional Flow Reserve, and Perfusion Imaging for Ischemia Diagnosis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND Fractional flow reserve (FFR) computation from coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) datasets (FFRCT) has emerged as a promising noninvasive test to assess hemodynamic severity of coronary artery disease (CAD), but has not yet been compared with traditional functional imaging. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of FFRCT and compare it with coronary CTA, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and positron emission tomography (PET) for ischemia diagnosis. METHODS This subanalysis involved 208 prospectively included patients with suspected stable CAD, who underwent 256-slice coronary CTA, 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT, [15O]H2O PET, and routine 3-vessel invasive FFR measurements. FFRCT values were retrospectively derived from the coronary CTA images. Images from each modality were interpreted by core laboratories, and their diagnostic performances were compared using invasively measured FFR ≤0.80 as the reference standard. RESULTS In total, 505 of 612 (83%) vessels could be evaluated with FFRCT. FFRCT showed a diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 87%, 90%, and 86% on a per-vessel basis and 78%, 96%, and 63% on a per-patient basis, respectively. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for identification of ischemia-causing lesions was significantly greater for FFRCT (0.94 and 0.92) in comparison with coronary CTA (0.83 and 0.81; p < 0.01 for both) and SPECT (0.70 and 0.75; p < 0.01 for both), on a per-vessel and -patient level, respectively. FFRCT also outperformed PET on a per-vessel basis (AUC 0.87; p < 0.01), but not on a per-patient basis (AUC 0.91; p = 0.56). In the intention-to-diagnose analysis, PET showed the highest per-patient and -vessel AUC followed by FFRCT (0.86 vs. 0.83; p = 0.157; and 0.90 vs. 0.79; p = 0.005, respectively). CONCLUSIONS In this study, FFRCT showed higher diagnostic performance than standard coronary CTA, SPECT, and PET for vessel-specific ischemia, provided coronary CTA images were evaluable by FFRCT, whereas PET had a favorable performance in per-patient and intention-to-diagnose analysis. Still, in patients in whom 3-vessel FFRCT could be analyzed, FFRCT holds clinical potential to provide anatomic and hemodynamic significance of coronary lesions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649
2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease
Task Force Members, Montalescot, G., Sechtem, U., Achenbach, S., Andreotti, F., Arden, C., Budaj, A., Bugiardini, R., Crea, F., Cuisset, T., et al. (2013) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht296 · Cited by 4,510
Self-citationFractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Tonino, P. A. L., De Bruyne, B., Pijls, N. H. J., Siebert, U., Ikeno, F., van `t Veer, M., Klauss, V., Manoharan, G., Engstrøm, T., Oldroyd, K. G., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0807611 · Cited by 4,260
Fihn, S. D., Gardin, J. M., Abrams, J., Berra, K., Blankenship, J. C., Dallas, A. P., Douglas, P. S., Foody, J. M., Gerber, T. C., Hinderliter, A. L., et al. (2012) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e3182776f83 · Cited by 2,410
Low Diagnostic Yield of Elective Coronary Angiography
Patel, M. R., Peterson, E. D., Dai, D., Brennan, J. M., Redberg, R. F., Anderson, H. V., Brindis, R. G., & Douglas, P. S. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0907272 · Cited by 1,665
Shaw, L. J., Berman, D. S., Maron, D. J., Mancini, G. B. J., Hayes, S. W., Hartigan, P. M., Weintraub, W. S., O’Rourke, R. A., Dada, M., Spertus, J. A., et al. (2008) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.107.743963 · Cited by 1,605
Outcomes of Anatomical versus Functional Testing for Coronary Artery Disease
Douglas, P. S., Hoffmann, U., Patel, M. R., Mark, D. B., Al-Khalidi, H. R., Cavanaugh, B., Cole, J., Dolor, R. J., Fordyce, C. B., Huang, M., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1415516 · Cited by 1,543
Nørgaard, B. L., Leipsic, J., Gaur, S., Seneviratne, S., Ko, B. S., Ito, H., Jensen, J. M., Mauri, L., De Bruyne, B., Bezerra, H., et al. (2014) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.043 · Cited by 1,498
Self-citationKoo, B.-K., Erglis, A., Doh, J.-H., Daniels, D. V., Jegere, S., Kim, H.-S., Dunning, A., DeFrance, T., Lansky, A., Leipsic, J., et al. (2011) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.06.066 · Cited by 1,282
Self-citation
Cited by
Virani, S. S., Newby, L. K., Arnold, S. V., Bittner, V., Brewer, L. C., Demeter, S. H., Dixon, D. L., Fearon, W. F., Hess, B., Johnson, H. M., et al. (2023) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001168 · Cited by 1,598
Virani, S. S., Newby, L. K., Arnold, S. V., Bittner, V., Brewer, L. C., Demeter, S. H., Dixon, D. L., Fearon, W. F., Hess, B., Johnson, H. M., et al. (2023) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2023.04.003 · Cited by 596
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Applied at the Point of Care
Angehrn, Z., Haldna, L., Zandvliet, A. S., Gil Berglund, E., Zeeuw, J., Amzal, B., Cheung, S. Y. A., Polasek, T. M., Pfister, M., Kerbusch, T., et al. (2020) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2020.00759 · Cited by 93
Kadem, M., Garber, L., Abdelkhalek, M., Al-Khazraji, B. K., & Keshavarz-Motamed, Z. (2023) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2022.3142058 · Cited by 89
Hanneman, K., Playford, D., Dey, D., van Assen, M., Mastrodicasa, D., Cook, T. S., Gichoya, J. W., Williamson, E. E., Rubin, G. D., & on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; and Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young (2024) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001202 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Driessen, R. S., Danad, I., Stuijfzand, W. J., Raijmakers, P. G., Schumacher, S. P., van Diemen, P. A., Leipsic, J. A., Knuuti, J., Underwood, S. R., van de Ven, P. M., van Rossum, A. C., Taylor, C. A., & Knaapen, P.
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Cardiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 161-173
- ISSN
- 0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2908860082
- Cited by
- 445
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 29.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography, Fractional Flow Reserve, and Perfusion Imaging for Ischemia Diagnosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.056
- The paper
- Driessen, R. S., Danad, I., Stuijfzand, W. J., Raijmakers, P. G., Schumacher, S. P., van Diemen, P. A., Leipsic, J. A., Knuuti, J., Underwood, S. R., van de Ven, P. M., van Rossum, A. C., Taylor, C. A., & Knaapen, P. (2019). Comparison of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography, Fractional Flow Reserve, and Perfusion Imaging for Ischemia Diagnosis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.056
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
