Dataset related to the article "Diagnostic accuracy of subendocardial vs. transmural myocardial perfusion defect for the detection of in-stent restenosis or progression of coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention
收藏资源简介：
This record contains raw datarelated to the article"Diagnostic accuracy of subendocardial vs. transmural myocardial perfusion defect for the detection of in-stent restenosis or progression of coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention Background. The ADVANTAGE study demonstrated in a cohort of stented patients a diagnostic accuracy of stress myocardial CT perfusion (CTP) significantly higher than that of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) for the detection of in-stent restenosis (ISR) or CAD progression vs. quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). This is a pre-defined subanalysis of the ADVANTAGE aimed at assessing the difference in terms of diagnostic accuracy vs. QCA of a subendocardial vs. a transmural perfusion defect using static stress CTP.<br> Methods. We enrolled consecutive patients who previously underwent coronary stenting and were referred for QCA. All patients underwent stress CTP and rest CTP+CCTA. The diagnostic accuracy of CCTA and CTP were evaluated in territory-based and patient-based analyses. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of “subendocardial” perfusion defect, defined as hypo-enhancement encompassing >25% but <50% of the transmural myocardial thickness within a specific coronary territory vs. “transmural” perfusion defect, defined as hypo-enhancement encompassing >50% of the transmural thickness.<br> Results. In 150 patients (132 men, mean age 65.1±9.1 years), the diagnostic accuracy of subendocardial vs. transmural perfusion defect in a vessel-based analysis was 93.5% vs. 87.7%, respectively (p<0.0001). The sensitivity and specificity of subendocardial vs. transmural defect were 87.9% vs. 46.9% (p<0.001) and 94.9% vs. 97.9% (p=0.004), respectively. In a patient-based analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of the subendocardial vs. transmural approach was 86.6% vs. 68% (p<0.0001).<br> Conclusions. This study shows that detection of a subendocardial perfusion defect as compared to a transmural defect is significantly more accurate to identify coronary territories with ISR or CAD progression.
