Automated Quantitative Plaque Burden from Coronary CT Angiography Noninvasively Predicts Hemodynamic Significance by using Fractional Flow Reserve in Intermediate Coronary Lesions

Published Online:

Automatic quantification of total, noncalcified, and low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden at coronary CT angiography significantly improves determination of hemodynamic significance by using fractional flow reserve in patients with intermediate coronary lesions.


To evaluate the utility of multiple automated plaque measurements from coronary computed tomographic (CT) angiography in determining hemodynamic significance by using invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis.

Materials and Methods

The study was approved by the institutional review board. All patients provided written informed consent. Fifty-six intermediate lesions (with 30%–69% diameter stenosis) in 56 consecutive patients (mean age, 62 years; range, 46–88 years), who subsequently underwent invasive coronary angiography with assessment of FFR (values ≤0.80 were considered hemodynamically significant) were analyzed at coronary CT angiography. Coronary CT angiography images were quantitatively analyzed with automated software to obtain the following measurements: volume and burden (plaque volume × 100 per vessel volume) of total, calcified, and noncalcified plaque; low-attenuation (<30 HU) noncalcified plaque; diameter stenosis; remodeling index; contrast attenuation difference (maximum percent difference in attenuation per unit area with respect to the proximal reference cross section); and lesion length. Logistic regression adjusted for potential confounding factors, receiver operating characteristics, and integrated discrimination improvement were used for statistical analysis.


FFR was 0.80 or less in 21 (38%) of the 56 lesions. Compared with nonischemic lesions, ischemic lesions had greater diameter stenosis (65% vs 52%, P = .02) and total (49% vs 37%, P = .0003), noncalcified (44% vs 33%, P = .0004), and low-attenuation noncalcified (9% vs 4%, P < .0001) plaque burden. Calcified plaque and remodeling index were not significantly different. In multivariable analysis, only total, noncalcified, and low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden were significant predictors of ischemia (P < .015). For predicting ischemia, the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.83 for total plaque burden versus 0.68 for stenosis (P = .04).


Compared with stenosis grading, automatic quantification of total, noncalcified, and low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden substantially improves determination of lesion-specific hemodynamic significance by FFR in patients with intermediate coronary lesions.

© RSNA, 2015


  • 1. 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(25):2135–2144. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (assessment by coronary computed tomographic angiography of individuals undergoing invasive coronary angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52(21):1724–1732. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. 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(3):213–224. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Nam CW, Yoon HJ, Cho YK, et al. Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in intermediate coronary artery disease: fractional flow reserve–guided versus intravascular ultrasound–guided. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3(8):812–817. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (fractional flow reserve versus angiography for multivessel evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56(3):177–184. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Nakazato R, Park HB, Berman DS, et al. Noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography angiography for coronary lesions of intermediate stenosis severity: results from the DeFACTO study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;6(6):881–889. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Abbara S, Arbab-Zadeh A, Callister TQ, et al. SCCT guidelines for performance of coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009;3(3):190–204. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Halliburton SS, Abbara S, Chen MY, et al. SCCT guidelines on radiation dose and dose-optimization strategies in cardiovascular CT. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011;5(4):198–224. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography)—developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33(6):1756–1824. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. MacCarthy P, Berger A, Manoharan G, et al. Pressure-derived measurement of coronary flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45(2):216–220. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Barbato E, et al. Intracoronary and intravenous adenosine 5ʹ-triphosphate, adenosine, papaverine, and contrast medium to assess fractional flow reserve in humans. Circulation 2003;107(14):1877–1883. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Dey D, Schepis T, Marwan M, Slomka PJ, Berman DS, Achenbach S. Automated three-dimensional quantification of noncalcified coronary plaque from coronary CT angiography: comparison with intravascular US. Radiology 2010;257(2):516–522. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Dey D, Cheng VY, Slomka PJ, et al. Automated 3-dimensional quantification of noncalcified and calcified coronary plaque from coronary CT angiography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2009;3(6):372–382. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Motoyama S, Sarai M, Harigaya H, et al. Computed tomographic angiography characteristics of atherosclerotic plaques subsequently resulting in acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54(1):49–57. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Achenbach S, Ropers D, Hoffmann U, et al. Assessment of coronary remodeling in stenotic and nonstenotic coronary atherosclerotic lesions by multidetector spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43(5):842–847. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Steigner ML, Mitsouras D, Whitmore AG, et al. Iodinated contrast opacification gradients in normal coronary arteries imaged with prospectively ECG-gated single heart beat 320–detector row computed tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3(2):179–186. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Schuhbaeck A, Dey D, Otaki Y, et al. Interscan reproducibility of quantitative coronary plaque volume and composition from CT coronary angiography using an automated method. Eur Radiol 2014;24(9):2300–2308. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB, Pencina KM, Janssens AC, Greenland P. Interpreting incremental value of markers added to risk prediction models. Am J Epidemiol 2012;176(6):473–481. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B, et al. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55(25):2816–2821. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Nørgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (analysis of coronary blood flow using CT angiography: next steps). J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63(12):1145–1155. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Kristensen TS, Engstrøm T, Kelbæk H, von der Recke P, Nielsen MB, Kofoed KF. Correlation between coronary computed tomographic angiography and fractional flow reserve. Int J Cardiol 2010;144(2):200–205. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Voros S, Rinehart S, Vazquez-Figueroa JG, et al. Prospective, head-to-head comparison of quantitative coronary angiography, quantitative computed tomography angiography, and intravascular ultrasound for the prediction of hemodynamic significance in intermediate and severe lesions, using fractional flow reserve as reference standard (from the ATLANTA I and II study). Am J Cardiol 2014;113(1):23–29. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Nakazato R, Shalev A, Doh JH, et al. Aggregate plaque volume by coronary computed tomography angiography is superior and incremental to luminal narrowing for diagnosis of ischemic lesions of intermediate stenosis severity. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62(5):460–467. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24. Shmilovich H, Cheng VY, Tamarappoo BK, et al. Vulnerable plaque features on coronary CT angiography as markers of inducible regional myocardial hypoperfusion from severe coronary artery stenoses. Atherosclerosis 2011;219(2):588–595. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25. Rossi A, Papadopoulou SL, Pugliese F, et al. Quantitative computed tomographic coronary angiography: does it predict functionally significant coronary stenoses? Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7(1):43–51. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26. De Bruyne B, Hersbach F, Pijls NHJ, et al. Abnormal epicardial coronary resistance in patients with diffuse atherosclerosis but “normal” coronary angiography. Circulation 2001;104(20):2401–2406. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Naya M, Murthy VL, Blankstein R, et al. Quantitative relationship between the extent and morphology of coronary atherosclerotic plaque and downstream myocardial perfusion. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58(17):1807–1816. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28. Narula J, Nakano M, Virmani R, et al. Histopathologic characteristics of atherosclerotic coronary disease and implications of the findings for the invasive and noninvasive detection of vulnerable plaques. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61(10):1041–1051. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29. Fearon WF. Is a myocardial infarction more likely to result from a mild coronary lesion or an ischemia-producing one? Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4(6):539–541. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30. Maurovich-Horvat P, Ferencik M, Voros S, Merkely B, Hoffmann U. Comprehensive plaque assessment by coronary CT angiography. Nat Rev Cardiol 2014;11(7):390–402. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31. Berman DS, Stoebner RA, Dey D. Combined anatomy and physiology on coronary computed tomography angiography: a step or two in the right direction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63(18):1913–1915. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32. 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(12):1271–1279. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33. Taylor CA, Fonte TA, Min JK. Computational fluid dynamics applied to cardiac computed tomography for noninvasive quantification of fractional flow reserve: scientific basis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61(22):2233–2241. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34. Wong DT, Ko BS, Cameron JD. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of combined assessment using adenosine stress computed tomography perfusion + computed tomography angiography with transluminal attenuation gradient + computed tomography angiography against invasive fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63(18):1904–1912. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35. George RT, Arbab-Zadeh A, Cerci RJ, et al. Diagnostic performance of combined noninvasive coronary angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging using 320-MDCT: the CT angiography and perfusion methods of the CORE320 multicenter multinational diagnostic study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197(4):829–837. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received July 14, 2014; revision requested September 2; revision received December 1; accepted December 3; final version accepted January 15, 2015.
Published online: Apr 17 2015
Published in print: Aug 2015