CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

血流储备分数

Abstract

Recommended Article

The Impact of Coronary Physiology on Contemporary Clinical Decision Making Coronary CT Angiographic and Flow Reserve-Guided Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Prognostic Implications of Plaque Characteristics and Stenosis Severity in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Physiological Stratification of Patients With Angina Due to Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Randomized Comparison of FFR-Guided and Angiography-Guided Provisional Stenting of True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-VI Trial (Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions VI) Utilization and Outcomes of Measuring Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease The impact of downstream coronary stenoses on fractional flow reserve assessment of intermediate left main disease Fractional flow reserve in clinical practice: from wire-based invasive measurement to image-based computation

Original Research2020 Feb 17[Online ahead of print]

JOURNAL:Eur Heart J. Cardiovasc Imaging Article Link

Clinical Risk Factors and Atherosclerotic Plaque Extent to Define Risk for Major Events in Patients Without Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: The Long-Term Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography CONFIRM Registry

AR van Rosendael, AM Bax, JM Smit et al. Keywords: coronary computed tomography angiography; risk stratification; atherosclerosis; imaging; preventive cardiology

ABSTRACT


AIMS - In patients without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), we examined the prognostic value of risk factors and atherosclerotic extent.

 

METHODS AND RESULTS - Patients from the long-term CONFIRM registry without prior CAD and without obstructive (50%) stenosis were included. Within the groups of normal coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) (N = 1849) and non-obstructive CAD (N = 1698), the prognostic value of traditional clinical risk factors and atherosclerotic extent (segment involvement score, SIS) was assessed with Cox models. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or late revascularization. In total, 3547 patients were included (age 57.9 ± 12.1 years, 57.8% male), experiencing 460 MACE during 5.4 years of follow-up. Age, body mass index, hypertension, and diabetes were the clinical variables associated with increased MACE risk, but the magnitude of risk was higher for CCTA defined atherosclerotic extent; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for SIS >5 was 3.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.34.9) while HR for diabetes and hypertension were 1.7 (95% CI 1.32.2) and 1.4 (95% CI 1.11.7), respectively. Exclusion of revascularization as endpoint did not modify the results. In normal CCTA, presence of 1 traditional risk factors did not worsen prognosis (log-rank P = 0.248), while it did in non-obstructive CAD (log-rank P = 0.025). Adjusted for SIS, hypertension and diabetes predicted MACE risk in non-obstructive CAD, while diabetes did not increase risk in absence of CAD (P-interaction = 0.004).

 

CONCLUSION - Among patients without obstructive CAD, the extent of CAD provides more prognostic information for MACE than traditional cardiovascular risk factors. An interaction was observed between risk factors and CAD burden, suggesting synergistic effects of both.