Assessing coronary stenosis. Quantitative coronary angiography versus visual estimation from cine-film or pharmacological stress perfusion images

46Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Visual judgment of stenosis severity from cine-film or single-photon emission computed tomographic dipyridamole perfusion images was compared to assessment of stenosis severity as measured with digital quantitative coronary angiography. Thirty patients with angiographically verified single-vessel disease underwent dipyridamole thallium stress testing within 90 days of angiography. Results. A percent diameter stenosis of ≤ 50%, a percent area stenosis of ≤ 75%, and a stenotic flow reserve of < 3.75 measured by quantitative coronary angiography (CMS, version 1.1, Medis Inc.) corresponded to haemodynamically significant stenosis as evaluated by visual estimates from cine-film or perfusion images. Quantitative coronary angiography percent diameter stenosis (51.2% ± 12.6%) correlated closely (r = 0.74) but underestimated significantly visual assessment of stenosis severity from cine-film (69.3% ± 21.2%; P= 0.0001). However, quantitative coronary angiography percent area stenosis (74.7% ± 11.7%) more closely reflected visual estimates from cine-film (P = 0.19). Quantitative coronary angiography stenotic flow reserve showed the highest positive and negative predictive value regarding visual estimates from cine-film (88%, 86%) or perfusion images (88%, 64%) followed by percent diameter stenosis (86%, 75% 86%, 56%) and percent area stenosis (87%, 80%, 87%, 60%), respectively. Conclusion. Evaluation of coronary lesions by quantitative coronary angiography corresponds closely with visual estimates from cine-film and haemodynamic significance as evaluated by dipyridamole perfusion images.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gottsauner-Wolf, M., Sochor, H., Moertl, D., Gwechenberger, M., Stockenhuber, F., & Probst, P. (1996). Assessing coronary stenosis. Quantitative coronary angiography versus visual estimation from cine-film or pharmacological stress perfusion images. European Heart Journal, 17(8), 1167–1174. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a015033

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free