ArticleScientific reports2024
Dynamic CT myocardial perfusion combined with coronary CT angiography for detecting hemodynamical significance of coronary artery stenosis: a comparative study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coronary artery stenosis segmentation using U-Net architecture with customised loss function.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A case report of right coronary artery ligation in the treatment of adult - type anomalous origin of the right coronary artery from the pulmonary artery complicated with coronary heart disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- What role for cardiac imaging in chronic coronary syndromes: review of the literature in light of the latest recommendations.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of combined dynamic stress CT myocardial perfusion imaging (CTP) and coronary CT angiography (CTA) alongside CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) in detecting hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). A total of 33 patients (86 vessels) who underwent coronary CTA, dynamic stress CTP, and coronary angiography were included. Vessels exhibiting 30-90% stenosis were subjected to FFR analysis based on coronary angiography (Angio-FFR). Hemodynamic significance, determined by Angio-FFR ≤ 0.80, and imaging findings were evaluated. The evaluation involved a comparison between the combined use of coronary CTA, CTP and CT-FFR, versus the sole use of coronary CTA. Out of 86 coronary vessels, 17 (19.8%) exhibited hemodynamically significant stenosis. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of coronary CTA for detecting ischemia were 94.12%, 34.78%, and 46.51%, respectively. Adding CTP to CTA improved specificity to 88.41%, and accuracy to 87.21%, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) for the discrimination of functional significant stenosis was 0.798 when using CTA alone, and for CTA plus CTP, it reached 0.910. Furthermore, the combination of CTA, CTP and CT-FFR, showed accuracy of 88.37%, sensitivity of 88.24% and specificity of 88.41% with the AUC of 0.946. The integration of dynamic CTP with CTA significantly enhances the diagnostic accuracy for identifying patients with hemodynamically significant CAD, compared to the use of CTA alone. This study underscores the value of combining CTP, CT-FFR, and CTA in improving diagnostic precision for CAD. The combination of CTP, CT-FFR and CTA offers a multifaceted assessment for patients with CAD by simultaneously providing anatomical detail, functional analysis, and physiological quantification, which facilitating rapid, accurate, and optimal clinical decision-making and significantly enhances patient management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.