Next Article in Journal
Impact of Clinical and Morphological Factors on Long-Term Mortality in Patients with Myocardial Bridge
Next Article in Special Issue
Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Thrombosis and Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
The Influence of Treatment with PCSK9 Inhibitors and Variants in the CRP (rs1800947), TNFA (rs1800629), and IL6 (rs1800795) Genes on the Corresponding Inflammatory Markers in Patients with Very High Lipoprotein(a) Levels
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Aortic Stenosis and Regurgitation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCDD
Volume 9
Issue 5
10.3390/jcdd9050128
jcdd-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Perivascular Fat Attenuation Index Improves the Diagnostic Performance for Functional Coronary Stenosis

by
Hankun Yan
,
Na Zhao
,
Wenlei Geng
,
Zhihui Hou
,
Yang Gao
*,† and
Bin Lu
*,†
Department of Radiology, Fu Wai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100037, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2022, 9(5), 128; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9050128
Submission received: 7 March 2022 / Revised: 18 April 2022 / Accepted: 20 April 2022 / Published: 23 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cardiac Imaging in Valvular Heart Disease)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is an established first-line test in the investigation of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), while the perivascular fat attenuation index (FAI) derived from CT seems to be a feasible and efficient tool for the identification of ischemia. The association between the FAI and lesion-specific ischemia as assessed by fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains unclear. Methods: In a total of 261 patients, 294 vessels were assessed for CCTA stenosis, vessel-specific FAI, lesion-specific FAI, and plaque characteristics. The diagnostic accuracies of each parameter and the combined approach were analyzed via the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) with FFR as the reference standard. The determinants of FAI were statistically analyzed. Results: The cutoff values of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores calculated according to the Youden index were −70.97 and −73.95 HU, respectively. No significant differences were noted between them; however, they exhibited a strong correlation. No significant differences were noted between the area under the curve (AUC) scores of vessel-specific FAI (0.677), lesion-specific FAI (0.665), and CCTA (0.607) (p > 0.05 for all) results. The addition of two FAI measures to the CCTA showed improvements in the discrimination (AUC) and reclassification ability (relative integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) and category-free net reclassification index (NRI)), vessel-specific FAI (AUC, 0.696; NRI, 49.6%; IDI, 5.9%), and lesion-specific FAI scores (AUC, 0.676; NRI, 43.3%; IDI, 5.4%); (p < 0.01 for all). Multivariate analysis revealed that low-attenuation plaque (LAP) volume was an independent predictor of two FAI measures. Conclusion: The combined approach of adding vessel-specific FAI or lesion-specific FAI scores could improve the identification of ischemia compared with CCTA alone. The LAP volume was the independent risk factor for both tools.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains the leading cause of death in upper-middle and high-income economies [1]. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is an established first-line test in the investigation of patients with suspected CAD, because it has a high negative predictive value and high accuracy in the diagnosis and exclusion of CAD [2,3,4]. However, only about half of obstructive coronary stenosis cases lead to ischemia [5,6] and are associated with worsened survival [7]. Therefore, it is important to find other factors beyond coronary stenosis to improve the recognition of lesion-specific ischemia.
The perivascular adipose tissue (PVAT) interacts with the arterial wall in a bidirectional manner and has been associated with the process of atherogenesis characterized by calcification and adverse clinical prognosis [8], which implies that there might be a common inflammatory background between PVAT and calcification. The perivascular fat attenuation index (FAI) is a metric derived from CT that captures the balance between lipids and water within PVAT. The FAI is associated with an increased risk of all-cause and cardiac mortality and adverse clinical outcomes [9], and could also help in detecting the presence of culprit lesions in patients with acute myocardial infarction [10,11]. Higher lesion-specific FAI and vessel-specific FAI values are linked to hemodynamically significant stenosis [12,13,14,15]. However, studies on the relationship between lesion-specific FAI and vessel-specific FAI are still inadequate. This study hypothesizes that there is a high degree of consistency between lesion-specific FAI and vessel-specific FAI, and that both of them can improve the diagnostic performance of CCTA in identifying lesion-specific ischemia. Accordingly, this study aims to investigate the relationship between lesion-specific FAI and vessel-specific FAI, as well as the associations between them and with coronary stenosis severity and ischemia using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as a reference standard.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population

In this study, we retrospectively collected data from patients with suspected or known stable CAD from January 2012 to March 2020 at our institution. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients with angina or angina-equivalent symptoms; (2) the presence of at least one lesion with stenosis diameters ranging between 30% and 90% of the major epicardial vessels (diameter ≥ 2 mm) based on CCTA; (3) patients who underwent CCTA, invasive coronary angiography (ICA), and FFR measurements within 2 weeks. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age < 18 years; (2) previous history of myocardial infarction; (3) previous history of coronary revascularization; (4) insufficient quality of CCTA images; (5) patients with anatomic variations in the heart or coronary arteries. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of our institution, and informed consent from all patients in this study was waived.

2.2. Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Acquisition

All CCTA scans were performed using a dual-source CT scanner (Definition Flash, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany). All patients were scanned by prospective electrocardiogram (ECG) gating technology, and images were acquired at 35–75% of the R–R interval. Beta-blockers were administered when the heart rate > 75 beats/min. Sublingual glyceryl trinitrate was administered before scanning in all patients. The scanning parameters were shown as follows: tube voltage, 100 kV or 120 kV (according to the body mass index of patients); tube current, automatic tube current modulation; rotation time, 0.28 s per rotation; slice thickness, 0.75 mm; gap, 0.70 mm. The optimal cardiac phase was selected by radiology technicians. During scanning, 60–70 mL of contrast medium (Iohexol, Shuangbei 350; Beilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) was injected into the antecubital vein through a dual-cylinder high-pressure syringe (Stellant; Medrad, Indianola, PA, USA) at a speed of 4.5–5.0 mL/s and then flushed with 30–40 mL of saline at the same speed. The calcification score (CS) of the coronary artery was measured as previously described by Agatston [16]. Stenosis severity was categorized as 30–49%, 50–69%, and 70–90% in coronary segments ≥ 2 mm by two experienced local radiologists who were blinded to the patient’s condition. When there were different opinions, a consensus was drawn after discussion. Coronary stenosis ≥ 50% was considered as obstructive stenosis.

2.3. Coronary Plaque Analysis

Plaque areas > 1 mm2 in coronary segments ≥ 2 mm were measured with a semi-automated dedicated plaque analysis software (Coronary Plaque Analysis, version 2.0, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany). The quantitative plaque components were automatically generated according to scan-specific thresholds within the manually designated area. Adjustments were performed if necessary. The remodeling index, plaque length, total plaque volume (TPV), low-attenuation plaque (LAP), intermediate-attenuation plaque (IAP), and calcified plaque (CP) values were previously measured. The remodeling index is the ratio of the largest vessel diameter at the lesion site to the vessel diameter at the proximal reference point, while a remodeling index > 1.1 indicates positive remodeling (PR) [17]. Two experienced observers performed the analyses and the average values were used for further analysis.

2.4. Perivascular Fat Attenuation Index Acquisition

Coronary PVAT around the epicardial coronary arteries with an attenuation window of −190 to −30 Hounsfield units (HU), is defined as the adipose tissue located within a distance from the outer vessel wall equal to the diameter of the adjacent coronary vessel [10]. Perivascular FAI was defined as the mean CT attenuation of PVAT, and it was also performed by a semi-automated post-processing software (Coronary Plaque Analysis, version 2.0, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany). Vessel-specific FAI values were acquired as described previously. To avoid the effects of the aortic wall, the most proximal 10 mm of the right coronary artery (RCA) was excluded and the proximal 10–50 mm of the vessel was analyzed [9]. In the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and left circumflex artery (LCX), the proximal 40 mm of each vessel was analyzed. Lesion-specific FAI scores for lesion plaques interrogated with FFR evaluation were measured from the proximal to the distal shoulder of the lesion. Additional manual optimization was performed, if necessary, to avoid the effects of non-adipose tissues, such as the small side branches or coronary veins. The time periods required for vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI analyses are between 6 and 8 min and between 3 and 5 min, respectively. Vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores of 30 consecutive vessels were measured by two experienced radiologists who were blinded to clinical, CCTA, and FFR data to evaluate the reproducibility between observers.

2.5. Invasive Coronary Angiography and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements

Invasive FFR measurements were assessed during the ICA inspection, and all operations were performed by a cardiovascular physician with extensive work experience. ICA and FFR were performed according to standard practices, as previously described [18]. FFR was the ratio of the pressure of the distal coronary artery to the aortic pressure during the maximum hyperemia, and it was measured by using a 0.014 inch pressure guidewire (St Jude Medical Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA). The FFR was measured at approximately 2 cm distal to the lesion stenosis. A hyperemic state was induced by continuous administration of intravenous adenosine at a rate of 160 mg/kg/min. Invasive FFR ≤ 0.80 was considered that the stenosis was physiologically significant and causal of lesion-specific ischemia [19,20].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were presented as means ± standard deviation (SD) in the case of normal distribution and medians (interquartile range) in the case of non-normal distribution, while categorical variables were expressed as numbers and percentages. To evaluate interobserver reproducibility, intraclass correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the interobserver variability of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores. The receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) was created to predict the area under the curve (AUC), while p-value, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) scores were calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI), using invasive FFR as the reference standard. The AUCs of different methods were compared using the method previously described by Delong et al. [21]. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of different methods were compared using Cochran’s Q test, then the post-Dunn test and Bonferroni correction were used for intergroup comparison [22], and PPV and NPV were compared using a chi-square test. Additive values of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI measures were evaluated by relative integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) and category-free net reclassification index (NRI) scores [23,24]. The best cutoff values of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores were selected according to the Youden index (defined as %sensitivity + %specificity − 1). Data were compared using Student’s t-test, Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis test, or chi-square test as appropriate. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictive factors of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI, respectively. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), MedCalc 19.0.4 (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium), and R 3.3.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) software. Statistical tests were two-tailed, and p-values < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

3. Results

3.1. Clinical Characteristics

The flowchart of patient selection is shown in Figure 1. Finally, a total of 261 patients were included in this study, in whom 294 vessels were interrogated by invasive FFR, including LAD (210; 71.4%), LCX (35; 11.9%), and RCA (49; 16.7%), respectively. The baseline characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. The mean age of the patients was 56.3 ± 8.7 years, and men accounted for 72.0% (188) of patients in this study. Lesion-specific ischemia was found in 45.2% (133/294) of vessels in 44.1% (115/261) of patients by obtaining FFR as a reference; the mean FFR value was 0.80 ± 0.11. There were 206 (70.8%) vessels with obstructive stenosis based on CCTA results.

3.2. Discrimination of Ischemia

The intraclass correlation coefficients were shown as follows: vessel-specific FAI, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.95–0.99); lesion-specific FAI, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.62–0.97). The distribution of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores is shown in Figure 2. There were no significant differences between vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores (p = 0.135), and they demonstrated a strong, almost collinear association (R = 0.770, p < 0.001).
Per-vessel AUCs for CCTA, vessel-specific FAI, and lesion-specific FAI scores were 0.607 (95% CI, 0.549–0.663), 0.677 (95% CI, 0.620–0.730), and 0.665 (95% CI, 0.608–0.719), respectively (Figure 3). According to the Youden index, the optimal cutoff values for vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores were −70.97 HU and −73.95 HU, respectively. Table 2 provides measures of diagnostic characteristics. Although the AUC of the vessel-specific FAI was higher than other methods, there were no statistically significant differences between them; the difference in AUC for the lesion-specific FAI was 0.012 (95% CI, −0.033–0.057, p = 0.612), and for the CCTA was 0.070 (95% CI, −0.004–0.143, p = 0.062). The difference in AUC of the lesion-specific FAI was 0.058 (95% CI, −0.015–0.131, p = 0.118) higher than CCTA, but there was still no statistically significant difference between them. No statistically significant differences in accuracy between CCTA, vessel-specific FAI, or lesion-specific FAI (all p > 0.05) were noted. The sensitivity of the CCTA and lesion-specific FAI methods were both higher than that of the vessel-specific FAI (p = 0.001, p = 0.011, respectively), while there were no statistically significant differences between CCTA and lesion-specific FAI (p = 1.000). The specificity of the vessel-specific FAI was higher than that of CCTA and lesion-specific FAI (p = 0.002, p = 0.013, respectively), and the difference between the CCTA and lesion-specific FAI was not statistically significant (p = 1.000). There were no statistically significant differences in NPV and PPV among them (p = 0.825, p = 0.356, respectively). A representative case is given in Figure 4.

3.3. Additive Values of FAI to CCTA

Figure 3 presents the ROCs for the three models, while the AUC, category-free NRI, and relative IDI values for the three models are shown in Table 3. Compared with the model using only CCTA, both diagnostic models using CCTA with vessel-specific FAI or lesion-specific FAI demonstrated higher AUC (CCTA along, 0.607, 95% CI, 0.549–0.663; CCTA + vessel-specific FAI, 0.696, 95% CI, 0.640–0.748, p < 0.001; CCTA + lesion-specific FAI, 0.676, 95% CI, 0.619–0.729, p < 0.001). Additionally, both the vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI enabled the effective reclassification of CCTA diameter stenosis results as follows: CCTA + vessel-specific FAI (NRI, 49.6%, 95% CI, 28.1–70.4%, p < 0.001; relative IDI, 5.9%, 95% CI, 3.3–8.4%, p < 0.001), CCTA + lesion-specific FAI (NRI, 43.3%, 95% CI, 25.2–61.4%, p < 0.001; relative IDI, 5.4%, 95% CI, 2.9–7.8%, p < 0.001).

3.4. Relationship between Vessel-Specific FAI, Lesion-Specific FAI, and Coronary Stenosis

The relationship between anatomical stenosis results determined by CT, vessel-specific FAI, and lesion-specific FAI is shown in Figure 5. Among the 233 vessels with obstructive stenosis (≥50%), vessel-specific FAI ≥ −70.97 HU accounted for 67.4% (157/233), while lesion-specific FAI ≤ −73.95 HU accounted for 79.8% (186/233). Among 119 severe stenosis (70–89%) lesions in CCTA, 75 (63.0%) demonstrated hemodynamic significance (invasive FFR ≤ 0.8), while moderate stenosis (50–69%) and mild stenosis (30–49%) accounted for 40.4% (46/114) and 19.7% (12/61), respectively.

3.5. Predictors of Vessel-Specific FAI and Lesion-Specific FAI

As shown in Table 4, male patients tend to have higher vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI values (p = 0.024, p = 0.001, respectively). Smoking patients also tend to have higher lesion-specific FAI values (p = 0.032) rather than vessel-specific FAI values (p = 0.127). Patients with lesion-specific FAI ≥ −70.97 HU tend to have higher TPV, LAP volume, and plaque length values (p = 0.012, p = 0.002, and p = 0.010, respectively), while patients with lesion-specific FAI ≥ −73.95 HU just tend to have higher LAP volume values (p = 0.002). The results of the logistic regression are shown in Table 5. In the univariable analysis, men (OR, 1.832, 95% CI, 1.085–3.095, p = 0.024), TPV (OR, 1.002, 95% CI, 1.001–1.004, p = 0.009), LAP volume (OR, 1.009, 95% CI, 1.004–1.014, p = 0.001), and plaque length (OR, 1.018, 95% CI, 1.001–1.036, p = 0.034) were related to vessel-specific FAI scores. Additionally, men (OR, 2.708, 95% CI, 1.530–4.796, p = 0.001), smoker (OR, 1.821, 95% CI, 1.053–3.151, p = 0.032), and LAP volume (OR, 1.010, 95% CI, 1.003–1.016, p = 0.003) were related to lesion-specific FAI scores. In multivariable analysis, after adjustment, LAP volume was an independent risk factor for both vessel-specific FAI (OR, 1.008, 95% CI, 1.001–1.014, p = 0.016) and lesion-specific FAI scores (OR, 1.008, 95% CI, 1.003–1.014, p = 0.002). The relationships between the vessel-specific FAI, lesion-specific FAI, and LAP volume are shown in Figure 6, and both the differences in vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI between different LAP groups were statistically significant (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). Both the vessel-specific FAI (R = 0.201, p = 0.001) and lesion-specific FAI (R = 0.241, p < 0.001) scores were weakly correlated with LAP volume.

4. Discussion

The main findings of this study are as follows. No significant differences were noted between vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores, and there was a strong, almost collinear association between them. Secondly, the diagnostic AUCs and accuracy levels of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI were not higher than for CCTA. However, the discrimination and reclassification ability for ischemia were significantly improved when vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI assessments, respectively, were added to CCTA. Lastly, the LAP volume was an independent risk factor for vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI values after adjusting for confounding factors.
Similar to previous studies [5,6], only 51.9% (121/233) of vessels with obstructive stenosis were hemodynamically significant in this study. Previous studies have also reported that lesion-specific ischemia diagnosed by FFR is associated with future adverse prognosis and that revascularization guided by FFR can improve event-free survival [19,20]. Consequently, this indicates that in addition to stenosis by CCTA, other non-invasive methods are needed to assist in improving the ability to discriminate ischemia.
Atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process [25] and inflammation is a key factor, not only for atherosclerotic development, but also for the progression of atherosclerotic plaques [26]. Perivascular FAI is a metric derived from CT, which reflects the presence of pericoronal inflammation [10]. The paracrine inflammatory signals from the inflamed vessel walls would prevent lipid accumulation by affecting biological processes such as adipocyte differentiation, proliferation, and lipolysis [9], thereby resulting in a shift from a lower to a higher water/lipid ratio, while the attenuation on CT images increases. Therefore, FAI would be higher when vascular inflammation occurs. Vascular inflammation is a chief contributor to endothelial dysfunction, leading to local “functional stenosis” [27,28]. FAI alone is a weak predictor of lesion-specific ischemia, because the diagnostic performance of the vessel-specific FAI or the lesion-specific FAI was not significantly higher than that of CCTA in this study. Compared to CCTA, the vessel-specific FAI or lesion-specific FAI aid in the identification of ischemia, resulting in relatively high-sensitivity and low specificity, rather than higher diagnostic AUC or accuracy. However, the discrimination and reclassification ability of hemodynamic significance stenosis were significantly improved when vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI assessments were added to CCTA, respectively, as reported previously [12,13,14,15]. Nevertheless, there were still some different results from previous studies, which may have been due to the different populations and software programs employed [29].
The measurement methods used for FAI in previous studies [12,13,14,15,29] were not consistent, which adds confusion in assessing the impacts of measurement methods on the diagnostic performance of the FAI. This study observed for the first time that there were no significant differences between vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores, and that there was a strong, almost collinear association between them. No significant difference in diagnostic performance was noted between the two. Therefore, the results of this study suggest that both FAI measurement methods could be applied to clinical practice. The vessel-specific FAI seems to be a more convenient and appropriate method than lesion-specific FAI because the former was measured automatically using software and it could reduce human error, meaning it had higher reliability. However, a large sample study is still needed for verification.
Patients with vessel-specific FAI scores ≥ −70.97 HU and lesion-specific FAI scores ≥ −73.95 HU tend to have higher LAP volumes. After adjustment, the LAP volume was shown to be an independent risk factor for vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores, and we also found that the LAP volume was positively correlated with both of these methods. Similar to our findings, Goeller et al. [30] demonstrated an increase in the burden of LAP marked by a significant increase in PVAT attenuation (p = 0.04), and there was an association between LAP burden and increased PVAT attenuation (R = 0.24, p = 0.01). LAP was the alternative to the presence of the necrotic core. The necrotic core causes inflammation and oxidative stress by improving the levels of vasoconstrictors and by reducing the production and bioavailability of vasodilators [28,31]. Moreover, vascular inflammation is associated with the FAI. Thus, the presence of necrotic cores is associated with the FAI, and this study supports these findings. In addition, CS is considered to be a specific marker of atherosclerotic burden, which might have a common inflammatory background with PVAT. A recent study speculated that there might be a potential correlation between PVAT and CS [32]. However, the results of this study found that there was no relationship between the FAI and CS, which may be related to the patient population and drug treatment received in this study.
This study still had some limitations. First, this study was a retrospective post hoc analysis of existing data. Thus, there may be potential selection bias in this study. Second, other CT-based techniques of functional assessment such as fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography (FFRCT) have been widely introduced and used. Intraindividual comparisons need to be performed in the future to determine the best single or combination approach. Finally, this study lacks clinical outcome data, and further clinical outcome studies are still needed to analyze the effectiveness of these methods.

5. Conclusions

The FAI is an additional tool used to identify patients with relevant stenosis, and the combined use of a vessel-specific FAI or lesion-specific FAI and CCTA could improve the diagnostic performance of ischemia compared with CCTA alone. Thus, the need for further invasive treatment can be better assessed in patients. The LAP volume is the independent risk factor used for both tools.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.Y., Z.H., Y.G. and B.L.; methodology, H.Y., N.Z. and W.G.; software, H.Y.; validation, H.Y., N.Z. and W.G.; formal analysis, H.Y.; resources, Y.G. and B.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.Y.; writing—review and editing, Y.G. and B.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Beijing Municipal Commission of Science and Technology (Z201100005620013), Clinical and Translational Medicine Research Foundation of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (2019XK320065), and the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, National Key Research and Development Project (2016YFC1300402).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the ethics committee of Fu Wai Hospital (number: NO.2018-1076).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the research teams in our hospital for their work on the study.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. WHO. Disease Burden and Mortality Estimates; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Moss, A.J.; Williams, M.C.; Newby, D.E.; Nicol, E.D. The Updated NICE Guidelines: Cardiac CT as the First-Line Test for Coronary Artery Disease. Curr. Cardiovasc. Imaging Rep. 2017, 10, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Meijboom, W.B.; Meijs, M.F.; Schuijf, J.; Cramer, M.J.; Mollet, N.R.; van Mieghem, C.A.; Nieman, K.; van Werkhoven, J.M.; Pundziute, G.; Weustink, A.C.; et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of 64-Slice Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography: A Prospective, Multicenter, Multivendor Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008, 52, 2135–2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Budoff, M.J.; Dowe, D.; Jollis, J.G.; Gitter, M.; Sutherland, J.; Halamert, E.; Scherer, M.; Bellinger, R.; Martin, A.; Benton, R.; 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 Un-dergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008, 52, 1724–1732. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Meijboom, W.B.; Van Mieghem, C.A.G.; van Pelt, N.; Weustink, A.; Pugliese, F.; Mollet, N.R.; Boersma, E.; Regar, E.; van Geuns, R.J.; de Jaegere, P.J.; et al. Comprehensive assessment of coronary artery stenoses: Computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional coronary angiography and correlation with fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008, 52, 636–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Shaw, L.J.; Berman, D.S.; Maron, D.J.; Mancini, G.B.J.; Hayes, S.W.; Hartigan, P.M.; Weintraub, W.S.; O’Rourke, R.A.; Dada, M.; Spertus, J.A.; et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: Results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggres-sive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation 2008, 117, 1283–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Erne, P.; Schoenenberger, A.W.; Burckhardt, D.; Zuber, M.; Kiowski, W.; Buser, P.T.; Dubach, P.; Resink, T.J.; Pfisterer, M. Effects of percutaneous coronary interventions in silent ischemia after myocardial infarction: The SWISSI II randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2007, 297, 1985–1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Margaritis, M.; Sanna, F.; Lazaros, G.; Akoumianakis, I.; Sheena, P.; Antonopoulos, A.S.; Duke, C.; Herdman, L.; Psarros, C.; Oikonomou, E.K.; et al. Predictive value of telomere length on outcome following acute myocardial in-farction: Evidence for contrasting effects of vascular vs. blood oxidative stress. Eur. Heart J. 2017, 38, 3094–3104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Oikonomou, E.K.; Marwan, M.; Desai, M.Y.; Mancio, J.; Alashi, A.; Centeno, E.H.; Thomas, S.; Herdman, L.; Kotanidis, C.P.; Thomas, K.E.; et al. Non-invasive detection of coronary inflammation using computed tomog-raphy and prediction of residual cardiovascular risk (the CRISP CT study): A post-hoc analysis of prospective outcome data. Lancet 2018, 392, 929–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Antonopoulos, A.S.; Sanna, F.; Sabharwal, N.; Thomas, S.; Oikonomou, E.K.; Herdman, L.; Margaritis, M.; Shirodaria, C.; Kampoli, A.-M.; Akoumianakis, I.; et al. Detecting human coronary inflammation by imaging perivascular fat. Sci. Transl. Med. 2017, 9, eaal2658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Goeller, M.; Achenbach, S.; Cadet, S.; Kwan, A.C.; Commandeur, F.; Slomka, P.J.; Gransar, H.; Albrecht, M.H.; Tamarappoo, B.K.; Berman, D.S.; et al. Pericoronary Adipose Tissue Computed Tomography Attenuation and High-Risk Plaque Characteristics in Acute Coronary Syndrome Compared With Stable Coronary Artery Disease. JAMA Cardiol. 2018, 3, 858–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Hoshino, M.; Yang, S.; Sugiyama, T.; Zhang, J.; Kanaji, Y.; Yamaguchi, M.; Hada, M.; Sumino, Y.; Horie, T.; Nogami, K.; et al. Peri-coronary inflammation is associated with findings on coronary computed tomography angiography and fractional flow reserve. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 2020, 14, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yu, M.; Dai, X.; Deng, J.; Lu, Z.; Shen, C.; Zhang, J. Diagnostic performance of perivascular fat attenuation index to predict hemodynamic signifi-cance of coronary stenosis: A preliminary coronary computed tomography angiography study. Eur. Radiol. 2020, 30, 673–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wen, D.; Li, J.; Ren, J.; Zhao, H.; Li, J.; Zheng, M. Pericoronary adipose tissue CT attenuation and volume: Diagnostic performance for hemody-namically significant stenosis in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Eur. J. Radiol. 2021, 140, 109740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ma, S.; Chen, X.; Ma, Y.; Liu, H.; Zhang, J.; Xu, L.; Wang, Y.; Liu, T.; Wang, K.; Yang, J.; et al. Lesion-Specific Peri-Coronary Fat Attenuation Index Is Associated With Functional Myocardial Ischemia Defined by Abnormal Fractional Flow Reserve. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 8, 755295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Agatston, A.S.; Janowitz, W.R.; Hildner, F.J.; Zusmer, N.R.; Viamonte, M.; Detrano, R. Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed to-mography. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1990, 15, 827–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Park, H.-B.; Heo, R.; Hartaigh, B.; Cho, I.; Gransar, H.; Nakazato, R.; Leipsic, J.; Mancini, G.B.J.; Koo, B.-K.; Otake, H.; et al. Atherosclerotic plaque characteristics by CT angiography identify coronary lesions that cause ischemia: A direct comparison to fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2015, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pijls, N.H.; van Schaardenburgh, P.; Manoharan, G.; Boersma, E.; Bech, J.-W.; Veer, M.V.; Bär, F.; Hoorntje, J.; Koolen, J.; Wijns, W.; et al. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Functionally Nonsignificant Stenosis: 5-Year Follow-Up of the DEFER Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2007, 49, 2105–2111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Tonino, P.A.L.; De Bruyne, B.; Pijls, N.H.J.; Siebert, U.; Ikeno, F.; van Veer, M.; Klauss, V.; Manoharan, G.; Engstrøm, T.; Oldroyd, K.G.; et al. Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Guiding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 360, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. De Bruyne, B.; Pijls, N.H.; Kalesan, B.; Barbato, E.; Tonino, P.A.; Piroth, Z.; Jagic, N.; Mobius-Winckler, S.; Rioufol, G.; Witt, N.; et al. Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI versus Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 991–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. DeLong, E.R.; DeLong, D.M.; Clarke-Pearson, D.L. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988, 44, 837–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dunn, O.J. Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums. Technometrics 1964, 6, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pencina, M.J.; D’Agostino, R.B., Sr.; D’Agostino, R.B., Jr.; Vasan, R.S. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat. Med. 2008, 27, 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cook, N.R.; Paynter, N.P. Performance of reclassification statistics in comparing risk prediction models. Biom. J. 2011, 53, 237–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Libby, P.; Ridker, P.M.; Maseri, A. Inflammation and atherosclerosis. Circulation 2002, 105, 1135–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ross, R. Atherosclerosis is an inflammatory disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999, 340, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lavi, S.; McConnell, J.P.; Rihal, C.S.; Prasad, A.; Mathew, V.; Lerman, L.O.; Lerman, A. Local production of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 and lysophosphati-dylcholine in the coronary circulation: Association with early coronary atherosclerosis and endothelial dysfunction in humans. Circulation 2007, 115, 2715–2721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Ahmadi, N.; Ruiz-García, J.; Hajsadeghi, F.; Azen, S.; Mack, W.; Hodis, H.; Lerman, A. Impaired coronary artery distensibility is an endothelium-dependent process and is associated with vulnerable plaque composition. Clin. Physiol. Funct. Imaging 2014, 36, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Du, Y.; Yang, L.; Liu, Y.; Yang, B.; Lv, S.; Hu, C.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Ma, Q.; Wang, Z.; et al. Relation between quantity and quality of peri-coronary epicardial adipose tissue and its underlying hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 2020, 20, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Goeller, M.; Tamarappoo, B.K.; Kwan, A.C.; Cadet, S.; Commandeur, F.; Razipour, A.; Slomka, P.J.; Gransar, H.; Chen, X.; Otaki, Y.; et al. Relationship between changes in pericoronary adipose tissue attenuation and coronary plaque burden quantified from coronary computed tomography angiography. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2019, 20, 636–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Lavi, S.; Yang, E.H.; Prasad, A.; Mathew, V.; Barsness, G.W.; Rihal, C.S.; Lerman, L.O.; Lerman, A. The Interaction Between Coronary Endothelial Dysfunction, Local Oxidative Stress, and Endogenous Nitric Oxide in Humans. Hypertension 2008, 51, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Cereda, A.; Toselli, M.; Palmisano, A.; Vignale, D.; Khokhar, A.; Campo, G.; Bertini, M.; Loffi, M.; Andreini, D.; Pontone, G.; et al. Coronary calcium score as a predictor of outcomes in the hypertensive COVID-19 population: Results from the Italian (S) Core-COVID-19 Registry. Hypertens. Res. 2021, 45, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcdd 09 00128 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of patient’s selection. CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; FFR, fractional flow reserve.
Figure 1. Flowchart of patient’s selection. CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; FFR, fractional flow reserve.
Jcdd 09 00128 g001
Jcdd 09 00128 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparisons of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores: (A) the distribution of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores, with medians, quartiles, and ranges shown in the box plot; (B) the correlation between vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores, with the scatter diagram showing a positive correlation between them (R = 0.770, p < 0.001). FAI, fat attenuation index; HU, Hounsfield unit; NS, non-statistical significance.
Figure 2. Comparisons of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores: (A) the distribution of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores, with medians, quartiles, and ranges shown in the box plot; (B) the correlation between vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores, with the scatter diagram showing a positive correlation between them (R = 0.770, p < 0.001). FAI, fat attenuation index; HU, Hounsfield unit; NS, non-statistical significance.
Jcdd 09 00128 g002
Jcdd 09 00128 g003 550
Figure 3. Receiver operating characteristic curves for the CCTA, vessel-specific FAI, and lesion-specific FAI in predicting ischemia: (A) ROC curves for predicting ischemia using CCTA, vessel-specific FAI, and lesion-specific FAI. (B) ROC curves of models using CCTA with and without vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI, respectively. Cutoff values of −70.97 HU for vessel-specific FAI and −73.95 HU for lesion-specific FAI according to the Youden index were used for the comparison between CCTA with and without these scores. CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; FAI, fat attenuation index; ROC, receiver operating characteristic curves; HU, Hounsfield unit.
Figure 3. Receiver operating characteristic curves for the CCTA, vessel-specific FAI, and lesion-specific FAI in predicting ischemia: (A) ROC curves for predicting ischemia using CCTA, vessel-specific FAI, and lesion-specific FAI. (B) ROC curves of models using CCTA with and without vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI, respectively. Cutoff values of −70.97 HU for vessel-specific FAI and −73.95 HU for lesion-specific FAI according to the Youden index were used for the comparison between CCTA with and without these scores. CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; FAI, fat attenuation index; ROC, receiver operating characteristic curves; HU, Hounsfield unit.
Jcdd 09 00128 g003
Jcdd 09 00128 g004 550
Figure 4. Example of a 42-year-old man with chest pain: (A) CCTA image showed a lesion analyzed with dedicated plaque analysis software proximal to the LAD with stenosis ranging between 70 and 90% (white arrow); (B,C) color-coded CPR image reveals that the mean perivascular FAIs of the lesion (lesion-specific FAI) and proximal 40 mm of LAD (vessel-specific FAI) were −63.75 HU and −67.92 HU, respectively; (D) measurement list shows the contents of various plaque components; (E) ICA showed that the stenosis degree of the lesion was about 90% (red arrow), and then FFR confirmed that the stenosis was hemodynamically significant (FFR = 0.75). CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; FAI, fat attenuation index; LAD, left anterior descending artery; CPR, curved planar reformation; HU, Hounsfield unit; ICA, invasive coronary angiography; FFR, fractional flow reserve.
Figure 4. Example of a 42-year-old man with chest pain: (A) CCTA image showed a lesion analyzed with dedicated plaque analysis software proximal to the LAD with stenosis ranging between 70 and 90% (white arrow); (B,C) color-coded CPR image reveals that the mean perivascular FAIs of the lesion (lesion-specific FAI) and proximal 40 mm of LAD (vessel-specific FAI) were −63.75 HU and −67.92 HU, respectively; (D) measurement list shows the contents of various plaque components; (E) ICA showed that the stenosis degree of the lesion was about 90% (red arrow), and then FFR confirmed that the stenosis was hemodynamically significant (FFR = 0.75). CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; FAI, fat attenuation index; LAD, left anterior descending artery; CPR, curved planar reformation; HU, Hounsfield unit; ICA, invasive coronary angiography; FFR, fractional flow reserve.
Jcdd 09 00128 g004
Jcdd 09 00128 g005 550
Figure 5. Relationship between vessel-specific FAI, lesion-specific FAI, and stenosis based on CCTA: (A,B) distribution of vessel-specific FAI (A) and lesion-specific FAI (B) scores in each group with 30–49%, 50–69%, and 70–90% diameter stenosis on CCTA. Medians, quartiles, and ranges of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores are shown in the box plot. Cutoff values of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores are displayed as dashed lines. FAI, fat attenuation index; CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography.
Figure 5. Relationship between vessel-specific FAI, lesion-specific FAI, and stenosis based on CCTA: (A,B) distribution of vessel-specific FAI (A) and lesion-specific FAI (B) scores in each group with 30–49%, 50–69%, and 70–90% diameter stenosis on CCTA. Medians, quartiles, and ranges of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores are shown in the box plot. Cutoff values of vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores are displayed as dashed lines. FAI, fat attenuation index; CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography.
Jcdd 09 00128 g005
Jcdd 09 00128 g006 550
Figure 6. Distribution of vessel-specific FAI (A) and lesion-specific FAI (B) scores according to quartile of LAP volume (Q1–Q4). Values shown are medians (interquartile range). FAI, fat attenuation index; HU, Hounsfield unit; LAP, low-attenuation plaque.
Figure 6. Distribution of vessel-specific FAI (A) and lesion-specific FAI (B) scores according to quartile of LAP volume (Q1–Q4). Values shown are medians (interquartile range). FAI, fat attenuation index; HU, Hounsfield unit; LAP, low-attenuation plaque.
Jcdd 09 00128 g006
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients.
CharacteristicValue
Number of patients, n261
Number of lesion vessels, n294
Age, year56.3 ± 8.7
Male, n (%)188 (72.03)
Body mass index, kg/m225.9 ± 3.1
Risk factors
Hypertension, n (%)153 (58.6)
Diabete, n (%)83 (31.8)
Dyslipidemia, n (%)222 (85.1)
Smoker, n (%)140 (53.6)
Family history of CAD, n (%)47 (18.0)
Distribution of lesion
LAD, n (%)210 (71.4)
LCX, n (%)35 (11.9)
RCA, n (%)49 (16.7)
Calcification score63.00 (3.18–208.45)
<400, n (%)136 (52.1)
≥400, n (%)125 (47.9)
CCTA stenosis
Stenosis between 30–49%, n (%)64 (21.77)
Stenosis between 50–69%, n (%)114 (38.78)
Stenosis between 70–90%, n (%)119 (40.48)
Invasive FFR0.80 ± 0.11
Vessels with FFR ≤ 0.80, n (%)133 (45.2)
RCA with FFR ≤ 0.80, n (%)12 (4.1)
LAD with FFR ≤ 0.80, n (%)46 (15.6)
LCX with FFR ≤ 0.80, n (%)75 (25.5)
Note: Continuous variables are expressed as means ± standard deviation values or median (interquartile range) values, and categorical variables are expressed as numbers (percentages) of patients or lesions. CAD, coronary artery disease; LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery; LCX, left circumflex coronary artery; RCA, right coronary artery; CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; FFR, fractional flow reserve.
Table
Table 2. Per-vessel diagnostic accuracy levels of CCTA, vessel-specific FAI, and lesion-specific FAI.
Table 2. Per-vessel diagnostic accuracy levels of CCTA, vessel-specific FAI, and lesion-specific FAI.
True Positive aTrue Negative aFalse Positive aFalse Negative a%
Accuracy		%
Sensitivity		%
Specificity		%
PPV		%
NPV		AUC
CCTA121491121257.82 (54.71–60.83)90.98 (84.77–95.25)30.44 (23.44–38.17)51.93 (49.05–54.80)80.33 (69.40–88.03)0.607 (0.549–0.663)
Vessel-specific FAI ≥ −70.97 HU10475862960.88 (0.578–0.639)78.20 (70.21–84.89)46.58 (38.70–54.60)54.74 (50.50–58.90)72.12 (64.30–78.79)0.677 (0.620–0.730)
Lesion-specific FAI ≥ −73.95 HU118531081558.16 (55.12–61.22)88.72 (82.08–93.55)32.92 (25.73–40.75)52.21 (49.11–55.29)77.94 (67.64–85.66)0.665 (0.608–0.719)
Note: Except otherwise indicated, data are percentages with 95% confidence intervals. a Data are raw data. CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; FAI, fat attenuation index; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AUC, area under curve.
Table
Table 3. Comparison of different models for the identification of ischemia (FFR ≤ 0.80).
Table 3. Comparison of different models for the identification of ischemia (FFR ≤ 0.80).
AUC (95% CI)Difference with CCTA (95% CI)pNRI (95% CI)pIDI (95% CI)p
CCTA0.607 (0.549–0.663)------
CCTA + Vessel-specific FAI0.696 (0.640–0.748)0.089 (0.050–0.127)<0.00149.6% (28.1–70.4%)<0.0015.9% (3.3–8.4%)<0.001
CCTA + Lesion-specific FAI0.676 (0.619–0.729)0.069 (0.036–0.102)<0.00143.3% (25.2–61.4%)<0.0015.4% (2.9–7.8%)<0.001
Note: Data are calculated with 95% confidence intervals. FFR, fractional flow reserve; AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; NRI, net reclassification index; IDI, integrated discrimination improvement; CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; FAI, fat attenuation index.
Table
Table 4. Patient and plaque characteristics according to vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores.
Table 4. Patient and plaque characteristics according to vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI scores.
Vessel-Specific FAILesion-Specific FAI
≥−70.97 HU
(n = 190)		<−70.97 HU
(n = 104)		p≥−73.95 HU
(n = 226)		<−73.95 HU
(n = 68)		p
Age, year56.4 ± 8.856.2 ± 8.60.82255.9 ± 8.857.9 ± 8.30.097
Male, n (%) a146 (76.84)67 (64.42)0.023178 (78.76)38 (55.88)<0.001
Body mass index, kg/m225.86 ± 3.1525.90 ± 3.020.91125.86 ± 3.1525.90 ± 2.960.920
hsCRP, mg/L1.10 (1.57)1.08 (1.74)0.9801.04 (1.57)1.10 (1.75)0.871
Hypertension, n (%) a113 (59.47)60 (64.42)0.767133 (58.85)40 (58.82)0.997
Diabete, n (%) a56 (29.47)34 (32.69)0.56766 (29.20)24 (35.29)0.339
Dyslipidemia, n (%) a160 (84.21)89 (85.58)0.756193 (85.40)56 (82.35)0.541
Smoker, n (%) a109 (57.37)50 (48.08)0.126130 (57.52)29 (42.65)0.031
Family history of CAD, n (%) a36 (18.95)17 (16.35)0.57941 (18.14)12 (17.65)0.926
TPV, mm3282.21 (215.82)231.95 (218.76)0.012267.21 (216.64)252.89 (234.30)0.182
CP volume, mm317.38 (53.67)15.89 (37.15)0.96315.53 (49.13)18.41 (45.85)0.308
IAP volume, mm3182.83 (135.15)168.87 (157.20)0.112182.32 (132.45)173.34 (168.22)0.442
LAP volume, mm349.70 (89.30)30.65 (35.59)0.00244.63 (77.36)28.60 (36.02)0.002
CS57.00 (212.35)64.50 (154.15)0.78257.00 (188.58)82.00 (314.40)0.125
Plaque length, mm24.28 (18.98)18.71 (18.52)0.01023.59 (18.16)18.29 (23.88)0.054
PR, n (%) a57 (30.00)30 (28.85)0.83670 (30.97)17 (25.00)0.344
Note: Unless otherwise indicated, data are means ± SD or medians (interquartile range). a Data are numbers (percentage). FAI, fat attenuation index; HU, Hounsfield unit; hsCRP, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; CAD, coronary artery disease; TPV, total plaque volume; CP, calcified plaque; IAP, intermediate-attenuation plaque; LAP, low-attenuation plaque; CS, calcification score; PR, positive remodeling.
Table
Table 5. Univariable and multivariable analysis for vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI.
Table 5. Univariable and multivariable analysis for vessel-specific FAI and lesion-specific FAI.
Univariable Analysis
Vessel-Specific FAILesion-Specific FAI
OR (95% CI)pOR (95% CI)p
Age1.003 (0.976–1.031)0.8210.973 (0.943–1.005)0.097
Sex1.832 (1.085–3.095)0.0242.708 (1.530–4.796)0.001
Body mass index0.996 (0.922–1.076)0.9110.995 (0.912–1.087)0.919
hsCRP1.025 (0.937–1.122)0.5861.067 (0.951–1.198)0.267
Hypertension1.076 (0.663–1.748)0.7671.001 (0.577–1.737)0.997
Diabete0.860 (0.514–1.440)0.5670.756 (0.426–1.343)0.340
Dyslipidemia0.899 (0.459–1.760)0.7561.253 (0.607–2.587)0.541
Smoker1.453 (0.899–2.349)0.1271.821 (1.053–3.151)0.032
Family history of CAD1.196 (0.635–2.255)0.5791.034 (0.509–2.102)0.926
TPV1.002 (1.001–1.004)0.0091.001 (1.000–1.003)0.111
CP volume1.002 (0.997–1.006)0.4050.999 (0.995–1.004)0.789
IAP volume1.002 (1.000–1.004)0.0631.001 (0.999–1.004)0.292
LAP volume1.009 (1.004–1.014)0.0011.010 (1.003–1.016)0.003
CS1.000 (1.000–1.001)0.5480.999 (0.999–1.000)0.137
Plaque length1.018 (1.001–1.036)0.0341.011 (0.992–1.029)0.258
PR1.057 (0.625–1.788)0.8361.346 (0.726–2.495)0.345
Multivariable Analysis
Vessel-Specific FAILesion-Specific FAI
OR (95% CI)pOR (95% CI)p
Sex1.541 (0.897–2.650)0.1171.478 (0.780–2.800)0.231
Smoker--1.104 (0.616–1.980)0.739
TPV1.000 (0.997–1.002)0.818--
LAP volume1.008 (1.001–1.014)0.0161.008 (1.003–1.014)0.002
Plaque length1.010 (0.989–1.032)0.338--
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; FAI, fat attenuation index; hsCRP, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; CAD, coronary artery disease; TPV, total plaque volume; CP, calcified plaque; IAP, intermediate-attenuation plaque; LAP, low-attenuation plaque; CS, calcification score; PR, positive remodeling.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yan, H.; Zhao, N.; Geng, W.; Hou, Z.; Gao, Y.; Lu, B. The Perivascular Fat Attenuation Index Improves the Diagnostic Performance for Functional Coronary Stenosis. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2022, 9, 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9050128

AMA Style

Yan H, Zhao N, Geng W, Hou Z, Gao Y, Lu B. The Perivascular Fat Attenuation Index Improves the Diagnostic Performance for Functional Coronary Stenosis. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease. 2022; 9(5):128. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9050128

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yan, Hankun, Na Zhao, Wenlei Geng, Zhihui Hou, Yang Gao, and Bin Lu. 2022. "The Perivascular Fat Attenuation Index Improves the Diagnostic Performance for Functional Coronary Stenosis" Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease 9, no. 5: 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9050128

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop