Prognostic value of coronary CT angiography for the prediction of all-cause mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction: a propensity score analysis

To explore the relationship between comprehensive assessment of coronary atherosclerosis by coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and all-cause mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction in the Chinese population. Sixty-three patients from the prospective long-term study who experienced major adverse ca...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The international journal of cardiovascular imaging 2023-11, Vol.39 (11), p.2247-2254
Hauptverfasser: Meng, Qingchao, Hou, Zhihui, Gao, Yang, Zhao, Na, An, Yunqiang, Lu, Bin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To explore the relationship between comprehensive assessment of coronary atherosclerosis by coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and all-cause mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction in the Chinese population. Sixty-three patients from the prospective long-term study who experienced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during the follow-up were included. No-MACE patients were 1:1 propensity-matched. Various qualitative and quantitative CCTA parameters, such as coronary artery calcium score (CACS), high-risk plaque, coronary artery disease (CAD) severity, number of obstructive vessels, segment involvement score (SIS), segment stenosis score (SSS), computed tomography-adapt Leaman score (CT-LeSc), and peri-coronary adipose tissue (PCAT) CT attenuation, were compared between both groups. Cox regression analysis was performed to determine the association between CCTA parameters and MACE. The MACE group had higher CACS, more high-risk plaques, more obstructive CAD, more obstructive vessels, higher PCAT CT attenuation, and higher coronary atherosclerotic burden (SIS: 5.76 ± 3.36 vs. 2.84 ± 3.07; SSS: 11.06 ± 8.41 vs. 3.94 ± 4.78; CT-LeSc: 11.25 ± 6.57 vs. 5.49 ± 5.82) than the control group (all p  
ISSN:1875-8312
1569-5794
1875-8312
1573-0743
DOI:10.1007/s10554-023-02918-7