Transluminal Attenuation Gradient for the Noninvasive Assessment of Functional Significance in Coronary Artery Stenoses

1. Benedek T, Gyöngyösi M, Benedek I. Multislice computed tomographic coronary angiography for quantitative assessment of culprit lesions in acute coronary syndromes. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29:364-371.10.1016/j.cjca.2012.11.00423333164Search in Google Scholar

2. Chatzizisis YS, George E, Cai T, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of automated, standardized coronary transluminal attenuation gradient measurements. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;30:1181-1189.10.1007/s10554-014-0446-4410474724839136Search in Google Scholar

3. König A, Klauss V. Virtual histology. Heart. 2007;93:977-982.10.1136/hrt.2007.116384199439117502324Search in Google Scholar

4. Terashima M, Kaneda H, Suzuki T. The Role of Optical Coherence Tomography in Coronary Intervention. The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine. 2012;27:1-12.10.3904/kjim.2012.27.1.1329597522403493Search in Google Scholar

5. Wongpraparut N, Yalamanchili V, Pasnoori V, et al. Thirty-month outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided versus conventional multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2005;96:877-884.10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.05.04016188509Search in Google Scholar

6. Fearon WF, Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Siebert U, Pijls NH; FAME Study Investigators. Rationale and design of the Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study. Am Heart J. 2007;154:632-636.10.1016/j.ahj.2007.06.01217892983Search in Google Scholar

7. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213-224.10.1056/NEJMoa080761119144937Search in Google Scholar

8. Berger A, Botman KJ, MacCarthy PA, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:438-442.10.1016/j.jacc.2005.04.04116053955Search in Google Scholar

9. Motoyama S, Masayoshi S, Harigaya H, et al. Computed tomographic angiography characteristics of atherosclerotic plaques subsequently resulting in acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:49-57.10.1016/j.jacc.2009.02.06819555840Search in Google Scholar

10. Jakó B, Benedek T, Suciu Zs, Benedek I. High Calcium Score Predicts Severity of the Culprit Lesions in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. Acta Medica Marisiensis. 2014;59:298-301.Search in Google Scholar

11. Ferrante G, Presbitero P, Whitbourn R, Barlis P. Current applications of optical coherence tomography for coronary intervention. Int J Cardiol. 2013;165:7-16.10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.02.01322405134Search in Google Scholar

12. Maurovich-Horvat P, Schlett CL, Alkadhi H, et al. The napkin-ring sign indicates advanced atherosclerotic lesions in coronary CT angiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:1243-1252.10.1016/j.jcmg.2012.03.01923236975Search in Google Scholar

13. Diaz-Zamudio M, Dey D, Schuhbaeck A, et al. Automated Quantitative Plaque Burden from Coronary CT Angiography Noninvasively Predicts Hemodynamic Significance by using Fractional Flow Reserve in Intermediate Coronary Lesions. Radiology. 2015;276:408-415.10.1148/radiol.2015141648457816125897475Search in Google Scholar

14. Ko BS, Wong DT, Cameron JD, et al. 320-row CT coronary angiography predicts freedom from revascularisation and acts as a gatekeeper to defer invasive angiography in stable coronary artery disease: a fractional flow reserve-correlated study. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:738-747.10.1007/s00330-013-3059-824217643Search in Google Scholar

15. Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Knaapen P. Diagnosing coronary artery disease with hybrid PET/CT: It takes two to tango. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:874-890.10.1007/s12350-013-9753-823842709Search in Google Scholar

16. Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:2135-2144.10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.05819095130Search in Google Scholar

17. Stuijfzand WJ, Danad I, Raijmakers PG, et al. Additional value of transluminal attenuation gradient in CT angiography to predict hemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:374-386.10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.12.013437865124631509Search in Google Scholar

18. Li M1, Zhang J, Pan J, Lu Z. Obstructive coronary artery disease: reverse attenuation gradient sign at CT indicates distal retrograde flow – a useful sign for differentiating chronic total occlusion from subtotal occlusion. Radiology. 2013;266:766-772.10.1148/radiol.1212129423220898Search in Google Scholar

19. Nakanishi R, Matsumoto S, Alani A, et al. Diagnostic performance of transluminal attenuation gradient and fractional flow reserve by coronary computed tomographic angiography (FFR(CT)) compared to invasive FFR: a sub-group analysis from the DISCOVER-FLOW and DeFACTO studies. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;31:1251-1259.10.1007/s10554-015-0666-225904402Search in Google Scholar

20. Ko BS, Wong DT, Nørgaard BL, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Transluminal Attenuation Gradient and Noninvasive Fractional Flow Reserve Derived from 320–Detector Row CT Angiography to Diagnose Hemodynamically Significant Coronary Stenosis: An NXT Substudy. Radiology. 2016;279:75-83.10.1148/radiol.201515038326444662Search in Google Scholar

21. Choi JH, Min JK, Labounty TM, et al. Intracoronary transluminal attenuation gradient in coronary CT angiography for determining coronary artery stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:1149-1157.10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.09.00622093264Search in Google Scholar

22. Wong DT, Ko BS, Cameron JD, et al. Transluminal attenuation gradient in coronary computed tomography angiography is a novel noninvasive approach to the identification of functionally significant coronary artery stenosis: a comparison with fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1271-1279.10.1016/j.jacc.2012.12.02923414792Search in Google Scholar