Visually Estimated RESOLVE Score Based on Coronary Computed Tomography to Predict Side Branch Occlusion in Percutaneous Bifurcation Intervention.
Journal
Journal of thoracic imaging
ISSN: 1536-0237
Titre abrégé: J Thorac Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8606160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2021
01 May 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
20
1
2021
medline:
26
11
2021
entrez:
19
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The quantitative RESOLVE (Risk prEdiction of Side branch OccLusion in coronary bifurcation interVEntion) score derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (coronary CTA) was developed as a noninvasive and accurate prediction tool for side branch (SB) occlusion in coronary bifurcation intervention. We aimed to determine the ability of a visually estimated CTA-derived RESOLVE score (V-RESOLVE score) to predict SB occlusion in coronary bifurcation intervention. The present study included 363 patients with 400 bifurcation lesions. CTA-derived V-RESOLVE score was derived and compared with the quantitative CTA-derived RESOLVE score. The scoring systems were divided into quartiles, and classified as the high-risk and non-high-risk groups. SB occlusion was defined as any decrease in thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade after main vessel stenting. In total, 28 SB occlusions (7%) occurred. The concordance between visual and quantitative CTA analysis showed poor to excellent agreement (weighted κ range: 0.099 to 0.867). The area under the receiver operating curve for the prediction of SB occlusion was significantly higher for the CTA-derived V-RESOLVE score than for quantitative CTA-derived RESOLVE score (0.792 vs. 0.709, P=0.049). The total net reclassification index was 42.7% (P=0.006), and CTA-derived V-RESOLVE score showed similar capability to discriminate between high-risk group (18.6% vs. 13.8%, P=0.384) and non-high-risk group (3.8% vs. 4.9%, P=0.510) as compared with quantitative CTA-derived RESOLVE score. Visually estimated CTA-derived V-RESOLVE score is an accurate and easy-to-use prediction tool for the stratification of SB occlusion in coronary bifurcation intervention.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33464008
doi: 10.1097/RTI.0000000000000570
pii: 00005382-202105000-00008
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
189-196Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Ford TJ, McCartney P, Corcoran D, et al. Single- versus 2-stent strategies for coronary bifurcation lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials with long-term follow-up. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e008730.
Muramatsu T, Onuma Y, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Incidence and short-term clinical outcomes of small side branch occlusion after implantation of an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold: an interim report of 435 patients in the ABSORB-EXTEND single-arm trial in comparison with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in the SPIRIT first and II trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:247–257.
Hahn JY, Chun WJ, Kim JH, et al. Predictors and outcomes of side branch occlusion after main vessel stenting in coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the COBIS II Registry (COronary BIfurcation Stenting). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1654–1659.
Lassen JF, Burzotta F, Banning AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for the left main stem and other bifurcation lesions: 12th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2018;13:1540–1553.
Dou K, Zhang D, Xu B, et al. An angiographic tool based on Visual estimation for Risk prEdiction of Side branch OccLusion in coronary bifurcation interVEntion: the V-RESOLVE score system. EuroIntervention. 2016;11:e1604–e1611.
Dou K, Zhang D, Xu B, et al. An angiographic tool for risk prediction of side branch occlusion in coronary bifurcation intervention: the RESOLVE score system (Risk prEdiction of Side branch OccLusion in coronary bifurcation interVEntion). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:39–46.
Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:407–477.
Opolski MP, Achenbach S, Schuhback A, et al. Coronary computed tomographic prediction rule for time-efficient guidewire crossing through chronic total occlusion: insights from the CT-RECTOR multicenter registry (Computed Tomography Registry of Chronic Total Occlusion Revascularization). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:257–267.
Opolski MP. Cardiac Computed Tomography for Planning Revascularization Procedures. J Thorac Imaging. 2018;33:35–54.
Wolny R, Pregowski J, Kruk M, et al. Computed tomography angiography versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary interventions in bifurcation lesions—a prospective randomized pilot study. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2017;11:119–128.
Maroules CD, Rajiah P, Bhasin M, et al. Current Evidence in Cardiothoracic Imaging: Growing Evidence for Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography as a First-line Test in Stable Chest Pain. J Thorac Imaging. 2019;34:4–11.
Opolski MP, Grodecki K, Staruch AD, et al. Accuracy of RESOLVE score derived from coronary computed tomography versus visual angiography to predict side branch occlusion in percutaneous bifurcation intervention. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2020;14:258–265.
Lassen JF, Holm NR, Banning A, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation disease: 11th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:38–46.
Janssen JP, Rares A, Tuinenburg JC, et al. New approaches for the assessment of vessel sizes in quantitative (cardio-)vascular x-ray analysis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;26:259–271.
Mintz GS, Nissen SE, Anderson WD, et al. American College of Cardiology Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Standards for Acquisition, Measurement and Reporting of Intravascular Ultrasound Studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:1478–1492.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–845.
Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB Sr, Steyerberg EW. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med. 2011;30:11–21.
Hosmer DW, Hosmer T, Le Cessie S, et al. A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat Med. 1997;16:965–980.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.
Grodecki K, Opolski MP, Staruch AD, et al. Comparison of computed tomography angiography versus invasive angiography to assess Medina classification in coronary bifurcations. Am J Cardiol. 2020;125:1479–1485.
Grodecki K, Cadet S, Staruch AD, et al. Noncalcified plaque burden quantified from coronary computed tomography angiography improves prediction of side branch occlusion after main vessel stenting in bifurcation lesions: results from the CT-PRECISION registry. Clin Res Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1007/s00392-020-01658-1.
doi: 10.1007/s00392-020-01658-1
Girasis C, Onuma Y, Schuurbiers JC, et al. Validity and variability in visual assessment of stenosis severity in phantom bifurcation lesions: a survey in experts during the fifth meeting of the European Bifurcation Club. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;79:361–368.
Nallamothu BK, Spertus JA, Lansky AJ, et al. Comparison of clinical interpretation with visual assessment and quantitative coronary angiography in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practice: the Assessing Angiography (A2) project. Circulation. 2013;127:1793–1800.
Bertrand ME, Lablanche JM, Bauters C, et al. Discordant results of visual and quantitative estimates of stenosis severity before and after coronary angioplasty. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1993;28:1–6.